ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Dissident Groups

David Hanson: What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the threat from dissident groups.

Jack Lopresti: What recent assessment he has made of the threat posed by terrorist groups in Northern Ireland.

Diana Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of dissident activity in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 1, 3, 8 and 11 together.
	The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe, and we continue to work closely with our partners in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to counter that threat. We are not complacent, and this Government remain totally committed to ensuring that the Chief Constable has the necessary resources to deal with the threat posed by those terrorist groups.

David Hanson: Does the Secretary of State welcome the many hundreds of people who came out in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) last week to protest against the bombing for the second time of the city of culture office in the city of Derry? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they represent the true voice of Northern Ireland, and will he work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that nothing deflects from the city of culture programme taking place in Derry?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this question and entirely endorse his comments. It is quite extraordinary, when we think of how that city is coming together, united behind the city of culture programme, which is coming along soon, that that tiny number of unrepresentative people could do such a crazily reckless thing. The demonstration of people coming out on to the street shows the support that exists for the settlement and for the PSNI, and that was endorsed this morning in my conversation with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Mr David Ford.

Jack Lopresti: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent unanimous support from all parts of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the Police Service of Northern Ireland in dealing with the dissident threat sends a clear message that those organisations will not succeed?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which follows on from what I have just said. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that we now have a police service that is wholly accountable to a democratically elected Justice Minister and a democratically elected Policing Board, on which all parties sit.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Mercer. Not here.

Diana Johnson: Is the security situation worse or better than it was a year ago?

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, and as she knows we have put in very significant extra resources, with £200 million going in over the next four years, backed by the Executive putting in a further £45 million. In discussions with the PSNI, we are determined to bear down on those groups, which are dangerous, and we are not complacent about them.
	To answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, we have slowed down the increase in such activity which we saw when we came into office, but there is definitely more work to do, and none of us should underestimate the danger that that small number of people represent not just to the police, but to people going about their everyday business.

Nigel Dodds: I endorse what the Secretary of State has already said about the lack of support from all parts for dissident groups in Northern Ireland, but on combating the dissident threat, what is he doing to strike at their source of funding and their raising of finances, particularly through illicit fuel laundering and other sources of revenue? What is happening to tackle that?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to make clear to the House the remarkable successes that the PSNI has pulled off, stopping fuel laundering and making some very significant arrests on illegal cigarettes. We should all remember the extraordinary level of co-operation that we now have between the PSNI and the Garda, working both sides of the border, because such activity is not restricted to the north.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s answer, but he will know that, as well as finance helping the dissident terrorists, one thing on which such people thrive is the hope that they are dictating the Government’s agenda. On that point, they have taken great comfort and solace from the fact that the Ministry of Defence decided not to allow a homecoming parade for the Royal Irish and the Irish Guards in Belfast. Will he continue his efforts and speak to the MOD about that issue, which has gone down very badly in all quarters of Northern Ireland, especially when such parades have been allowed elsewhere throughout the Province? Will he have a word with the Ministry of Defence on that?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for that question, too, because I can now clarify that I have regular discussions with the Ministry of Defence. I went to Balmoral showground and I was there with the First Minister when the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards put on a wonderful demonstration and were warmly welcomed by a large number of people. That was agreed by the Ministry of Defence with the city council.

Vernon Coaker: Recently there have been two bombs found in south Belfast, a bomb found in Bradbury place, and a pipe bomb left on the windowsill of a Polish couple on an estate in Antrim. These are in addition to the other bombs and outrages of which the Secretary of State will be aware. This is totally unacceptable. People have a right to live without fear and intimidation in any community. It is welcome that these attacks have been widely condemned as the work of a very small number of people who seem determined to turn the clock back. What is the latest assessment that the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive have made about the dissidents’ capabilities, and what steps have they agreed to take to combat their activities?

Owen Paterson: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Northern Ireland questions. As I said in the statement last week, Northern Ireland would not have progressed to where it has without the extremely close co-operation of the main political parties, not just in the UK but in Dublin and Washington. I very much look forward to working with him and wish him well in his difficult role.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, we work extremely closely with the Justice Minister, David Ford, and, as I have already said, we work very closely with the authorities in Dublin, and our assessment is that these groups are still dangerous. He has rightly cited a number of recent incidents which are absolutely outrageous and which are wholly exceptional. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to grab this wonderful opportunity to move Northern Ireland on, and so we will guarantee to work extremely closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Justice Minister, and the Garda in Dublin.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words. I will certainly try to work with him and others for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.
	What plans does the Secretary of State have to use his role in working with Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues to promote Londonderry/Derry as the UK city of culture 2013 both nationally and internationally? Is it not the case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, that one very powerful way of combating any dissident threat is to give a positive image of what the city and the whole of Northern Ireland can offer in terms of culture, and to give a true reflection of the people of Northern Ireland, in stark contrast to those who so recently caused outrage when they attacked the city of culture offices?

Mr Speaker: We now need to speed up. I call the Secretary of State.

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question and totally endorse it. I was at the launch of the city of culture with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but the key people there were the
	young people who put on the film and the soundtrack by Snow Patrol, which wowed the judges; Phil Redmond confirmed that it was the thing that really swung it. That is a complete celebration of everything good that is going on in that city, as was the opening of the bridge this year. The tiny number of crazy people putting bombs outside the offices are unrepresentative, and they will not succeed.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful. We will now move on with rather greater dispatch, I hope.

Legacy Issues

Paul Murphy: What plans he has to publish his conclusions on legacy issues in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been meeting a range of political parties and victims’ groups to discuss the issue of dealing with the past. So far, we have not found consensus. While the Government have a role to play, the way forward on this matter must come from within Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: The Secretary of State is of course right that solutions must come from within Northern Ireland, but he will realise that there is now widespread opposition to his proposal for a semi-inquiry into the Pat Finucane case. Does he understand that by going ahead with his proposal, £1.5 million is likely to be wasted, and will he now rethink?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I pay tribute to him, as I did last week in the statement. I am sorry that we disagree on this. He committed to a public inquiry, but he then passed the Inquiries Act 2005, which was the stumbling block. We inherited a complete impasse; this was going nowhere. We think that by accepting the conclusion of the Stevens inquiry, which is possibly the largest police inquiry in British history, and by having the family to Downing street for a fulsome apology, we can now concentrate on what is really important, which I raised with the family when I first met them—namely, to get to the truth as fast possible. That is why we have gone down this route of appointing a well-respected international lawyer and giving him very wide powers to get to the truth by December next year.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. However, given the political sensitivity surrounding legacy issues and the fact that the greatest legacy issue in Northern Ireland is the murder of Pat Finucane, will he reflect on the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in Dublin and of members of the Finucane family, and realise that this could undermine the very architecture of the Good Friday agreement? Will he now redress the situation and ensure that there is an independent judicial inquiry into—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must have time for the answers as well.

Owen Paterson: I am afraid that I simply do not agree. We inherited an impasse and have come up with a solution. I have talked to senior members of the Irish Government and I talked to the Tánaiste this week after he had seen the family. On this issue, sadly, we will simply disagree with them. We will not let this one issue undermine the extraordinarily good relations we have with the Republic, nor will we let it undermine the settlement. If the hon. Lady had been at Hillsborough last night and seen people from right across the community welcoming the President, she would have seen just how far Northern Ireland has moved on. We are all determined to keep that going.

David Simpson: One legacy issue that has never been addressed is the role played by elements of the Republic of Ireland’s Government in creating, financing, training and arming the Provisional IRA, and Dublin's shielding of the provos by refusing to co-operate fully with extradition. Does the Secretary of State accept that the families in Birmingham, Warrington, London, Aldershot and elsewhere deserve to see Enda Kenny step to the mark, acknowledge the failings of the southern Government and formally apologise for those killings?

Owen Paterson: I think that it is outside my remit. If the hon. Gentleman has questions that he would like to address to the Government of the Republic, he should write to them direct.

West Lothian Question

Harriett Baldwin: What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the commission to consider the West Lothian question.

Hugo Swire: In September, the Government set out the steps that we are taking to establish a commission on the West Lothian question. Northern Ireland Office Ministers and officials will continue to have regular discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and his office on this and a range of other issues.

Harriett Baldwin: The Minister will know that the West Lothian question is also known as the West Belfast question. Does he agree that it is important that the commission comes to a conclusion relatively quickly in order for steps to be taken to resolve this tricky constitutional issue before the next election?

Hugo Swire: Yes, I believe—as do the Government, which is lucky—that we need this commission. I think that we will hear its terms of reference shortly. When it is set up, it should conclude quite quickly. No doubt my hon. Friend, who has campaigned assiduously on this matter, will wish to give the commission the benefit of her views.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister agree that the creation of a two-tier Parliament here would be against the interests of the United Kingdom and the interests of Unionism throughout the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that if he were to proceed along the way of the West Lothian question, he would have to stand at that Dispatch Box and argue for double jobbing? Is that not against the interests of his Government?

Hugo Swire: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows our views on double jobbing in relation to Northern Ireland. He will equally know of my view that everybody in this place is equal. I take a rather more positive view than he does. The Governments in Edinburgh and Cardiff and the Executive in Northern Ireland are up and running and functioning. I therefore believe that it is time we looked at how parliamentary business—the business of this House—can be done better to reflect a post-devolution United Kingdom. That is what the commission will look at. That should reinforce the strength of the Union—something in which he and I both believe.

Credit Unions

Mark Durkan: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the regulation of credit unions in Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: Following discussions between Treasury Ministers and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority published a joint consultation paper in August setting out proposals for the transfer of the regulation of Northern Ireland credit unions from DETI to the FSA on 31 March 2012. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber, notably on the Opposition Benches. I would have thought that everybody would want to hear Mr Mark Durkan.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Tomorrow is international credit union day, and credit unions in Northern Ireland have been waiting for the change that he described for a long time so that they can offer their members a much greater range of services. Will he assure us that his work with Treasury Ministers will mean that the primary legislation will be adequate, the secondary legislation will follow fast and the transition arrangements will have a strong regional presence so that the credit unions can work with the new regulator to make a success of the new powers?

Hugo Swire: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and his predecessor John Hume, on championing the cause of credit unions for many years. There are 177 credit unions in Northern Ireland. They are part of the big society agenda, and we think they are great institutions. We want them to be able to expand and offer the services that credit unions in Great Britain currently can. He will agree that what is important during the change is that people with their money in those credit unions are properly protected. Like me, he will no doubt welcome the move to bring credit unions under the FSA or its successor, to protect them in a way that the Presbyterian Mutual Society savers were not protected.

Stephen Pound: The right hon. Gentleman will surely remember that a well-crafted and consensual Labour Bill to address precisely this issue was presented to the House in the last Parliament and cruelly garrotted during the wash-up. Does he regret the actions of his party?

Hugo Swire: I do not believe that the Labour party got everything wrong, just most things.

Air Passenger Duty

Stephen Hepburn: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect in Northern Ireland of changes to air passenger duty.

Owen Paterson: I have had regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who came to Northern Ireland in June, heard at first hand from local businesses about the importance of the issue and became personally involved in resolving it. As a result he announced a cut in air passenger duty next month for all direct long-haul flights from airports in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Hepburn: May I welcome yesterday’s announcement and say how encouraging it is to other parts of the UK that think that particular tax is unfair? Will the Minister keep the House updated on the progress of the tax cut so that we may learn something and get a change in other parts of the UK?

Owen Paterson: I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me to stray into areas that are not my responsibility, but I pay tribute to him and his friends on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who rapidly produced a report making a convincing case for the change. I would like to put on the record that it was a team effort. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State worked closely with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Arlene Foster. The key person was the Chancellor, who saw the need for the change following his visit, took a real personal interest and pushed it through.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State, and indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for taking swift and timely action on air passenger duty in Northern Ireland. When will the Secretary of State consider giving the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set the level of corporation tax?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and for getting the report through. I announced two weeks ago that a ministerial working group would be set up, chaired by my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, and it hopes to meet in early November.

Alasdair McDonnell: Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with members of the Northern Ireland Executive about the devolution of taxes other than corporation tax to Northern Ireland?

Mr Speaker: Order. We need particular reference to the importance of the air passenger duty. I am sure the hon. Gentleman meant to mention that.

Owen Paterson: I discussed air passenger duty with members of the Executive, namely the First Minister and the acting Deputy First Minister, yesterday, and I have discussed corporation tax. I have not discussed the devolution of any other taxes.

Naomi Long: With respect to the devolution of air passenger duty, will the Secretary of State be pressing for a swift timetable to take that forward? Will he also consider other double-duty taxations caused by people having to travel through GB airports?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary made a statement yesterday confirming that from 1 November the long-haul rate will be reduced. I hope to see that followed through swiftly by the Treasury, which is working closely with Executive Ministers so that this issue can be devolved as soon as possible.

Donations (Political Parties)

Thomas Docherty: What recent discussions he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland on the law relating to donations to such parties.

Hugo Swire: It is clear from my discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland that, like us, they want greater transparency over donations and loans. We will legislate to deliver this as soon as we can.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He will appreciate the deep unease on both sides of this House about the continuing special measures required in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister spell out exactly when he proposes to legislate on this issue and when Sinn Fein will no longer get their special Short money?

Hugo Swire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have reluctantly extended the current arrangements to 2013 and hope to return to the House on this matter before then. I point out to him that Sinn Fein is subject to the same requirement as all other parties, and donations of more than £7,500 must be reported to the Electoral Commission. We want to move to a period of full transparency, but the time is not yet right. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The next questioner is a former Northern Ireland Minister and I trust that the House will want to hear him.

Aviation (Economic Development)

Paul Goggins: What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the contribution of aviation to economic development.

Hugo Swire: I am in regular contact with Executive Ministers about air routes and fully understand the importance of the aviation industry to Northern Ireland, one of whose main companies, Bombardier Aerospace, I shall be seeing again shortly.

Paul Goggins: May I also welcome the Government’s decision to reduce air passenger duty on long-haul flights? This creates a new anomaly, of course, whereby if someone pays tax on a return flight from Belfast to New York they will pay less tax than they would on a return flight to Manchester. Given the importance of regional routes to the Northern Ireland economy, will
	the Minister press the Chancellor, who is sitting very close to him, for a lower rate of duty on flights between Belfast and regional airports in the UK?

Hugo Swire: We have been pressing the Chancellor on quite a lot of things recently and I am not sure we want to press him much more. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland shares a land border and the flights from Dublin were cheaper—that was the problem. We are most grateful to the Treasury for recognising the anomaly of the transatlantic Belfast route, and any other airlines that are listening in might wish to take advantage of that, because we want to grow air traffic to Northern Ireland as part of rebalancing the economy.

Gregory Campbell: We all agree with the recent announcement on the Continental Airlines transatlantic route. Will the Minister make himself available so that if other routes become possible from all three airports in Northern Ireland on the transatlantic scene he will be able to help deliver more progress?

Hugo Swire: Yes, of course we will. The key is the transfer of APD to the Executive for this transatlantic route. An investigation into APD is going on in the Treasury and the hon. Gentleman might wish to make representations to it. As I have just said, we are very interested in growing air routes to Northern Ireland, and not least in growing more from Great Britain into Belfast or any other airport. We want more tourists, more businessmen and more economic growth.

Youth Unemployment

Nicholas Dakin: What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on reducing youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: Tackling youth unemployment is a key priority for the UK Government and Northern Ireland Ministers. The Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, has visited Northern Ireland on two occasions and met the Social Development and Employment and Learning Ministers to discuss these very matters.

Nicholas Dakin: What additional support is the Secretary of State putting in place to reduce youth unemployment so that young people have a positive future in Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman has a long track record in youth issues. We are very concerned about them. This was a problem for the previous Government, of which he was not a member, in all fairness, and it continues to be a problem. The Executive are dealing with a number of issues to do with apprenticeships and youth learning and we will continue to support them in every way. It is critical, however, that Executive Ministers engage with Lord Freud on the whole proposed package of welfare reform.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to increase youth employment in Northern Ireland is to invest in apprenticeships and the university technical schools, which is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is right—that is certainly one way of increasing youth employment. There is youth unemployment in Northern Ireland as there is in Great Britain, but as I have pointed out, that problem bedevilled the previous Government as well as this one, and we take it very seriously. Most of the levers are in the hands—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister of State is delivering a formidably eloquent answer, but unfortunately I cannot hear it. Would he address the House?

Hugo Swire: At the risk of repeating myself, the levers are mostly in the hands of Stormont Executive Ministers, and I urge them to engage with Lord Freud and his ministerial colleagues in respect of the package of welfare reform, which will be important for Northern Ireland’s future prosperity.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision to cap tuition fees at just over £3,000 and the boost that that provides to young people in Northern Ireland who seek to graduate from university?

Hugo Swire: Those are quite properly matters for the Executive. I would point out, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, that that money must be found from within the Executive’s existing budget.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen Hepburn: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 October.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in remembering Rifleman Vijay Rai, from 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles. He was a talented and dedicated soldier, and our deepest sympathies should be with his family and his friends. He was proud to be a Gurkha and it is at times such as these that we especially remember the deep debt of gratitude that we owe all those brave soldiers.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stephen Hepburn: I commend and share the views of the Prime Minister concerning our brave military personnel.
	Is the Prime Minister aware that this year we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Jarrow march? Is it not wrong that even today people in this country live in fear of the dole and unemployment? The Government have been in for one year and already we are back to the 1980s. I ask him a simple question: will he support workers or sacrifice them?

David Cameron: I believe that we need to be supporting people and helping them back into work. As the hon. Gentleman says, we should commemorate the Jarrow march, and I notice that it has been commemorated this year. We have a challenge right across the country
	as we see the numbers of those employed in the public sector inevitably go down, which would be happening whoever was standing at this Dispatch Box. We have got to make sure that there are more jobs in the private sector.
	It is worth while that in the north-east Nissan is creating 200 new jobs, Hitachi is creating up to 500 new jobs, the Lear Corporation is creating an extra 300 jobs, and BT is creating an extra 280 jobs, in South Shields. There are 500,000 more private sector jobs—new jobs—compared with the time of the last election, but I recognise that we need to do more. That is what the Work programme is all about.

Oliver Colvile: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his joint declaration with the Canadian Prime Minister on ocean renewable energy? We need to ensure that we have growth in our economy. What does he think universities such as Plymouth, which has a very good reputation for marine science research, can do to help to ensure that we have that?

David Cameron: I commend my hon. Friend for his question, because a number of universities in our country—including Edinburgh, which I have visited—are leaders in marine renewable energy. My right hon. Friend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary yesterday announced that we will go ahead with renewables obligation certificates, ensuring that we boost that vital industry and attract jobs to this country for offshore wind and other renewable technologies.

Edward Miliband: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Rifleman Vijay Rai from 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles? In joining the Army, he was following in a proud family tradition. He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and our deepest condolences are with his family and friends.
	The revelations over the past week about what has been going on in the most sensitive Department at the heart of the Prime Minister’s Government are deeply worrying. The former Defence Secretary had an unofficial adviser with access to top officials in the military and, indeed, in foreign Governments, who was funded by undeclared private donations solicited by him, yet the Prime Minister says that he and No. 10 knew nothing about these goings-on for 18 months. How did he allow this to happen?

David Cameron: First, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important and serious issue, which is why I set up a full and proper inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. He has produced his report, and it has been published in full. It is worth noting, however, that in this case the Secretary of State for Defence recognised that he had made a mistake, acknowledged that had broken the ministerial code and resigned. That was not something that always happened in the previous 13 years.

Edward Miliband: I have a piece of advice for the Prime Minister: this week of all weeks, show a bit of humility, eh? The truth is that we still do not know the full facts about this case, about the money trail and about who exactly in the Government met Mr Werritty. It is becoming clear that there is a network of individuals,
	some with close links to the Conservative party and other Cabinet members, who funded Mr Werritty. Given that the Prime Minister says that he knew nothing about the former Defence Secretary’s arrangements, can he give the House a categorical guarantee that over the past 18 months no other Minister has been engaging in similar activities?

David Cameron: I think that we should have a little humility from the people who gave us cabs for hire, passports for favours, mortgages for mates, dodgy dossiers, the smearing of opponents and good days to bury bad news. I note that these were the questions that the right hon. Gentleman was meant to ask last week. I have some advice for him: if he is going to jump on a bandwagon, make sure it is still moving.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister has no answer to the question that people want answered. We have seen a pattern of activity from him: he does not ask the tough questions of those around him, and when anything goes wrong, it is nothing to do with him. What did he say in the ministerial code that he published? He said:
	“It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.”
	In the past three months, we have seen his Defence Secretary resign in disgrace and his spin doctor arrested. Is that what he meant by being different?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have failed to notice that the Minister in question has resigned—you’re just a bit late.

Julian Brazier: Would my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear Mr Brazier.

Julian Brazier: Would my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the Governor of the Bank of England has said that we are facing a possibly unprecedented economic crisis, it is a good thing that the country is still committed to getting our debts under control and to retaining credibility in the financial markets?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. People should listen to what the Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday:
	“With a lower level of sterling and a credible plan to reduce the fiscal deficit over the medium term, we were on track. But the problems in the euro area and the marked slowing of the world economy have lengthened the period over which a return to normality is likely.”
	That is what we face in this country, but it means that we should stick to the plan of dealing with our debts and our deficit. If we listened to the Labour party and added £23 billion to the deficit this year, it would not be “Greek-onomics”; it would be “freakonomics”.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister has acknowledged that there was collusion in the murder of Pat Finucane. Does he accept that in order to get to the bottom of that we have to get to the top of that? Does he recognise that many of us lack confidence that a desk review by even an eminent lawyer will be able to do that? Will he reflect further on the grave misgivings expressed by the Finucane family and the Irish Government?

David Cameron: Of course I understand the scepticism of the hon. Gentleman; and of course, there was great scepticism by many at the time of the Saville inquiry about whether it would get to the truth. What matters most is the intent of the British Government in uncovering what happened, being frank about it, acknowledging it and apologising for it. That is what we are going to do, and we do not need an open-ended inquiry to achieve that. To those who are sceptical, I know that they will go on being sceptical; I would just ask them to have an open mind. I believe that we can deal with this issue properly.

Martin Horwood: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Cheltenham borough council on building the first new council housing in 20 years and planning more and more affordable housing on brownfield sites, but also recognise the council’s anxiety that the first draft of the new national planning policy framework could render it powerless to defend vital and treasured green spaces on the urban fringe, which are being deliberately targeted by developers?

David Cameron: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman on the planning policy. We are not making changes to green belt or other protections, and I am sure he can discuss that with the planning Minister. Of course I congratulate all local councils that get on and build the houses that we badly need to house the homeless and deal with overcrowding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the announcements that have been made—the Deputy Prime Minister and I have been working closely on this—to ensure that we use money from the right to buy to build more social housing so that we end the scandal of overcrowded housing.

Steve Rotheram: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and your staff, and would like to put on record my gratitude to the Home Secretary and those in all parts of the House for their support for the Hillsborough families during Monday’s debate. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that Governments have made mistakes, that 22 years is 22 years too long to fight for the truth and that if it is proven that there was an orchestrated cover-up, justice should prevail, despite two decades passing, and those really responsible for the Hillsborough disaster should be brought to book?

David Cameron: Last week I promised the hon. Gentleman that the time for his debate would be properly protected and that the House would have proper time to debate it, which it did. This week I can tell him that we are going to open up those papers and publish them as we promised so that people can see what was happening. However, it is important to remember that the Taylor inquiry was a proper and thorough investigation. It was not just an inquiry into what happened; it also led to huge changes in the way we manage and arrange football in this country. Hillsborough was a national tragedy. I am hugely sympathetic to the families of the victims, and I am sure that there are regrets for all the institutions involved at the time, including the Government.

Damian Hinds: The Prime Minister has already given his backing to national heroes day this Friday, 21 October. Will he join me in
	commending the hundreds of schools taking part, celebrating inspirational role models and raising money for Help for Heroes?

David Cameron: I am very pleased to do that. I am a huge fan of Help for Heroes. The way the charity has grown has been a remarkable story. I have seen for myself the extraordinary efforts that it has made at Headley Court, where it has built an extraordinary swimming pool that is used by so many people who are recovering from their injuries in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I would certainly be pleased to support what my hon. Friend says.

Edward Miliband: Last week we heard that unemployment was at its highest level since the last Conservative Government. This week we heard that retail price inflation was at its highest level since the last Conservative Government. Does the Prime Minister still think that his plan is working?

David Cameron: To put the right hon. Gentleman right, the last time that CPI—which is the measure of inflation that we all now recognise—was as high as this was in 2008, when he was in government. That is quite an important point to note. Of course inflation is too high. The principal reasons for it being so high are world food prices, world fuel prices, the depreciation of sterling—[Hon. Members: “VAT.”] Yes, there was an effect from the increase in VAT, just as there was an effect when he increased VAT at the beginning of 2010, but the reason for increasing VAT is to get on top of the record deficit that the last Government left.

Edward Miliband: As always, the Prime Minister says that it is just like that in the rest of the world, but we have the highest inflation of any EU country apart from Estonia. That is because of decisions that he made, including the decision on VAT. Week in, week out, the evidence mounts that his plan is not working, but he refuses to change course. Last week, we heard that his flagship national insurance scheme had not worked. Now let me ask him about his flagship regional growth fund, which he launched 16 months ago. Can he tell us how many businesses have had cash paid out to them under the scheme?

David Cameron: First, let me just put the right hon. Gentleman right on this issue—[ Interruption. ] It is important. One of the reasons Britain has such a difficult situation with inflation is that we were the country with the biggest boom and the biggest bust of any major European country. He cannot hide from that. The regional growth fund is going to be distributing billions of pounds right across the country, and it is a thoroughly worthwhile scheme that he should be supporting.

Edward Miliband: I do not think that the Prime Minister knows the answer. The Government have certainly issued lots of press releases about the regional growth fund—22 of them—but how many businesses have been helped during the past 16 months? Two businesses have been helped. And how many businesses have gone bankrupt in that time? Sixteen thousand. What greater example could there be that this Government’s plan is not working? We have had 18 months of his economic experiment, and what have we got to show for it? More and more
	people losing their jobs, more and more businesses going bust and inflation going through the roof—and all we have is a Prime Minister who is hopelessly out of touch.

David Cameron: All the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is talk down the economy, so he will not mention the fact that 300,000 new businesses have started and that 500,000 people have jobs who did not have one at the time of the election. The big question for the right hon. Gentleman is: if he does not like our plan, where is his plan? We now know that his plan to deal with out debts is—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Organised barracking is not acceptable. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman’s plan is to add £23 billion to Britain’s deficit this year, and almost £100 billion to our deficit by the end of the Parliament. There is not a single country in Europe that would have such a crazy plan—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. We are most grateful to the shadow Chancellor for his advice, but I would like to apply it to the House as a whole. The whole House must calm down; otherwise, it will be in need of medical treatment.

David Cameron: The problem is that it was the advice of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) that got us into this mess in the first place. When is he going to learn that there is not a single country in Europe that thinks that you deal with your debts by adding to your debts? That is why no one listens to him here or in Europe.

Anna Soubry: Yesterday, a report was published into the serious failure of Nottinghamshire police to protect a young woman who went on to be murdered by her violent partner. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is imperative that all police forces have the practices, policies and training necessary to protect women from violent men?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; she makes an important point. Some police forces have taken huge steps forward in dealing with domestic violence, but not all of them have done so. We need to spread that best practice right across the country.

Pat Glass: The Association of Colleges has just announced the largest fall in college enrolments since 1999, and it cites the abolition of EMA as a major factor. This is a tragedy of the Government’s own making, and it lies directly at the door of the Secretary of State for Education. What is the Prime Minister going to do to put this right?

David Cameron: I think that the hon. Lady will find that the figures show that some enrolments in some colleges have actually gone up. Our replacement for EMA is a well-funded scheme that will be much better targeted at those people in need. The people who really need the extra money will get more than they did under EMA.

Neil Parish: Families in the country are facing very high fuel bills, and there is a vested interest among the big six fuel companies not to allow competition into the market. What exactly is the Prime Minister doing to encourage more competition and to bring prices down?

David Cameron: One of the things we are doing is insisting that the big six have to make more of their energy available in a pooling arrangement so that new businesses can come into the industry. The reason we have to do this is that the last Government abolished the pooling arrangements, creating the situation with the big six—and we do not need to ask who the Energy Secretary was during that Government as we are looking at him.

Tom Greatrex: Given the importance of carbon capture and storage both as a way of helping to reduce our carbon emissions and as an exportable technology to help rebalance the economy, will the Prime Minister put his words into action and step in to ensure that the Longannet demonstration project goes ahead?

David Cameron: What I can say is that the funding we set aside for carbon capture and storage is still there and will be made available. Clearly, the Longannet scheme is not working in the way that was intended, but the money and support from the Government for this vital technology is there.

John Pugh: Given the huge savings for the nation made by the Cabinet Office across government without legislation and the huge financial risks provoked by constant structural reorganisation, as in the NHS, would it not be better if politicians learned to manage more and meddle less—even if Governments find the latter easier and more interesting?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who does this patient work at the heart of government and does not always get recognised for it. We have reduced management consultants by 70%, saving £870 million; we have spent £490 million less on temporary labour; we have spent £400 million less on marketing and advertising: that is an 80% reduction. These are serious changes to cut the cost of central Government and make sure we provide good value for money. None of those things was done under the last Government.

John Spellar: Before the election the Prime Minister claimed that anyone caught carrying a knife should expect to go to prison. Has he read Brooke Kinsella’s article in today’s The Sun, revealing that 40% of all knife crime is carried out by under-18s? Why will he not deliver on his promise and put them in jail?

David Cameron: We are doing something that the last Government failed to do, which is to create a mandatory sentence for adults who are caught with knives to make sure that happens.

Andrew Rosindell: The Prime Minister will be aware that the British people are simply crying out for a referendum on the future of Europe. Will he please make history, follow the example of great Prime Ministers like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher and give the British people the chance to vote on our future with the European Union?

David Cameron: I completely understand and share the frustration that many have about the way in which the European Union goes about its business, particularly the costs and the bureaucracy, but I have to say that the key focus is to get on top of the EU budget, keep Britain out of the bail-out schemes and ensure that the single market is working. Of course we are committed as the Conservative party to the return of powers from Brussels to Westminster. We are also committed as a Government to ensuring that if power passes from Westminster to Brussels, there will have to be referendum. That promise is good for the whole of this Parliament and beyond, but I do not support holding a referendum come what may. That is not our policy and I will not support such a motion.

Gregory Campbell: We are all aware of the bravery and courage of our armed forces as they serve in Afghanistan. Last November Ranger Aaron McCormick from just outside Coleraine in my constituency died in Helmand province; he was one of many who paid the highest price to defend freedom. His commanding officer said:
	“Today, there is a gap in our ranks which no ordinary man could fill. He was the best of his country and we mourn his loss.”
	Will the Prime Minister ensure that a review is carried out into the way the Ministry of Defence prepares its honours list so that families can see that the entire nation recognises the sacrifice and selflessness of these brave men and women?

David Cameron: I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says and perhaps arrange a meeting between him and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) who is responsible for veterans and these issues. That would be a good thing to do. Let me say again that I have the highest possible regard for the professionalism, the courage and the dedication of our forces. We have paid a very high price in Afghanistan and in Iraq for what we have had to do there. I think the whole country, perhaps in a little bit of a contrast to what the hon. Gentleman says, recognises that and feels that very strongly and is looking for new ways to recognise what our armed forces do. That is why there is such strong support for Help for Heroes, for homecoming parades, for lists of honours, for the military covenant and for all such things. I think we should go on looking at what more we can do to recognise the service and sacrifice of our armed forces.

Adrian Sanders: As a result of inaccurate reporting and statements about a European directive applying to insulin-dependent diabetics, up to a million such people fear for their driving licences. Is it not the case that the way in which Department of Transport interprets that directive will determine whether or not people lose their licences? Will the Prime Minister make the position clear?

David Cameron: I will certainly try to do that.
	I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concern, which is shared by many insulin-treated diabetics throughout the country who want to continue to drive freely as they have in the past, but I can reassure him that relatively few of them will lose their licences as a result of the directive to which he has referred. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is going back to the European commission to check its understanding of the interpretation of the minimum standards in the directive. As Members in all parts of the House probably know, Departments gold-plate directives on too many occasions, and it cannot be said too often that they should stop it.

Angus Robertson: We learnt today that the British Airports Authority is to sell Edinburgh airport. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important for the Scottish economy that we have as many direct international routes and services as possible? If so, why does he not listen to the views of the four major airports and Transport Scotland, which want air passenger duty to be devolved?

David Cameron: I think the most important thing is that investment goes into the infrastructure of our airports, and I know from first hand that Edinburgh airport has superb facilities which continue to be improved. As for air passenger duty, we will continue to listen carefully to those arguments.

Sam Gyimah: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to tear down the apartheid in the education system, for which he argued a few weeks ago, not only should well-performing private schools support under-performing state schools on an ad hoc basis, but we should go further and encourage them to federate?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. I believe that that should be a cross-party initiative, and I pay tribute to Lord Adonis, who has made some extremely important speeches about the issue. I see a real opportunity for independent schools to do what Wellington college, Dulwich college and Brighton college have done, and sponsor academies in the state sector. I think that we can see the breaking down of the barriers between independent and state education, I think that this is a great way forward, and I hope that it will be given all-party support.

Graham Stringer: A change in the national targets regime and cuts have led to disarray in the Greater Manchester emergency services. A stroke victim has had to wait for an hour for an ambulance, the response time of the fire service has doubled in parts of Greater Manchester, and the police switchboard is in meltdown. What reassurances can the Prime Minister give that the failure of those services will not lead to a tragic death?

David Cameron: I will give careful consideration to what the hon. Gentleman has said. What I can say about health funding specifically is that we are implementing the £20 billion efficiency savings suggested by the now shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). However, the difference between the policy supported by his party and our policy is that we are putting all those savings
	back into the NHS, whereas the official Labour position is that increasing spending on the health service in real terms is “irresponsible”. We think it irresponsible not to increase spending.

Jason McCartney: David Brown Engineering in Lockwood, in my constituency, has received a regional growth fund investment that will help to create 80 new jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that, notwithstanding the moithering and doom-mongering of Opposition Members, there are success stories out there? With that in mind, will he consider coming to open the new innovation and enterprise centre at Huddersfield university in the spring?

David Cameron: What a delightful invitation! I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear about the Prime Minister’s Huddersfield travel plans.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I look forward to making those travel plans.
	I think that my hon. Friend has managed to show that the Leader of the Opposition’s first lot of questions were irrelevant and the second lot were probably wrong.

Ian Austin: The answer the Prime Minister just gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) is simply not good enough. The fact is that, despite all the Prime Minister’s promises, fewer people caught carrying knives are going to prison under this Government than under the last, so will he apologise to Brooke Kinsella and all the bereaved families of victims of knife crime for breaking the promise he made that he would take a tougher approach?

David Cameron: I am full of admiration for the campaign Brooke Kinsella has run. When someone has suffered such a loss in their own family, it is incredibly brave of them to get out there and campaign for change—and not just change in the law, but also change in the way the police behave and in the way young people behave. I think she is a thoroughly good individual, with a very great campaign. What this Government are doing—which the last Government did not do—is have a mandatory sentence for knife crime, which we will introduce in our forthcoming Bill.

Robert Buckland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists “giving voice” campaign, which rightly emphasises the central importance of speech, language and communication in tackling a wide range of social issues?

David Cameron: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that, and I know that you, Mr Speaker, take a close personal interest in this issue as well. Anyone who has brought up disabled children knows the vital importance of speech and language therapists. They also know that there are often not enough of them to provide all the help and services we need, and that getting their services through the statementing process can be extremely tough. I therefore certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says.

Russell Brown: We know that officials from other Governments were given the impression that the former Defence Secretary’s unofficial adviser represented the UK Government. How many people in total were misled, and will the Prime Minister provide a list?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman should read the Cabinet Secretary’s report, as he will find there all the details he might need about what Mr Werritty was doing, but I have to say that for the hon. Gentleman’s party to lecture us on lobbying comes slightly ill given that we now know that the former Labour Defence Secretary is working for a helicopter company, the former Home Secretary is working for a security firm, Lord Mandelson is at Lazard, and even the former leader and Prime Minister has in the last few months got £120,000 for speeches to Credit Suisse, Visa and Citibank. He told us he had put the money into the banks; we did not know he would get it out so quickly.

Mark Pritchard: Returning to the topic of Europe, does the Prime Minister accept that moves towards fiscal union in the eurozone will ultimately undermine the single market and the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. While we believe that the logic of a single currency drives the eurozone towards greater fiscal integration, that poses particular threats and risks to those of us who want the single market to work properly. At the European Council this weekend it is important to argue for safeguards to make sure that the single market remains robust and properly protected. That is what we must do in the short term. Of course in the longer term there may be further moves towards further treaties and so forth, and at that stage there may be opportunities to bring further powers back to Britain—and there may, indeed, be opportunities to hold a referendum, but I do not believe the right answer is to hold a referendum willy-nilly in this Parliament when we have so much to do to get Europe to sort out its problems.

Michael Meacher: On a statutory register of lobbyists, will the Prime Minister also ensure that so-called think-tanks—whose propaganda is clearly aimed at manipulating both Ministers and the public for their own ends—are required to reveal who ultimately funds them, so that we all know whose interests they really represent?

David Cameron: We are committed to having a statutory register of lobbyists. That does need to be put in place and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it needs to include think-tanks and other such organisations. It also needs to include one of the biggest lobbies of all—the lobby that owns the Labour party lock, stock and trade union barrel: the trade unions.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We now come to the statement by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. If Members leaving the Chamber can do so quickly and quietly, we can all look forward to hearing from Mr Secretary Clarke.

Justice and Security Green Paper

Kenneth Clarke: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I have today laid before Parliament the Justice and Security Green Paper. The document is the culmination of more than one year of careful analysis and consideration on how to respond to a difficult challenge for any liberal democracy: addressing how sensitive material can be properly handled in the civil justice system and how the work of the security and intelligence agencies can be properly scrutinised and those bodies held accountable.
	The problem is this: in recent years, there has been an increase in the number and diversity of judicial proceedings that examine national security-related actions. In many cases, the facts cannot be fully established without reference to sensitive material, but this material cannot be used in open court proceedings without risking serious damage to national security or international relations. Difficulties arise both in cases in which individuals are alleging Government wrongdoing and in cases in which the Government are seeking to take Executive action against individuals who pose a risk to the public. The consequence is a Catch-22 situation in which the courts may be prevented from reaching any fully informed judgment on the case because they cannot hear all the evidence in the case. They cannot hear all the evidence because it would do serious damage to national security if the evidence was available to all parties and the public. The Government are left with unsatisfactory choices: they could risk damage to national security by disclosing the material or summaries of it, or attempt to defend a case with often large amounts of relevant material excluded. If the material cannot safely be disclosed, the Government may be forced to settle cases, either by paying compensation or by withdrawing a case brought against an individual.
	Further problems are posed by applications for the disclosure of sensitive material being sought for use in other legal proceedings, particularly those overseas. The material has sometimes been generated by foreign Governments and shared with the United Kingdom Government on the most confidential of bases. In these cases, disclosure would endanger crucial international partnerships and put at risk the sharing of information, which is critical to the Britain’s national security.
	These are issues of the utmost importance, which the previous Government faced just as much as the current one do. The work of the security and intelligence agencies, and the sensitive information that they and foreign partners produce, is essential to prevent terrorist attacks, disrupt serious crime networks and make the case for Executive actions such as deportations and asset freezing.
	The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory for everyone: the Government are unable to defend their actions; claimants are left without clear judgments based on all the relevant information; and the public are left with no independent judgment by the court, because it has not been able to consider all the evidence. So the Justice and Security Green Paper contains a number of proposals to address these extremely difficult issues, and takes account of recent Supreme Court judgments. The Green Paper seeks views on a range of proposals including: extending the so-called “closed material
	procedures”, such as those used already in certain civil contexts, to all civil proceedings; clarifying the law on the requirement to provide a summary of the sensitive material heard in closed procedures to the other party when the procedures are utilised; enhancing the existing special advocate system to equip it to best serve the interests of the individual affected by the closed hearings; and ensuring that security issues are properly considered in cases seeking disclosure of material for use in other legal proceedings, including proceedings overseas.
	The Green Paper has a further vital goal: reviewing the existing oversight arrangements for our security and intelligence agencies and the wider intelligence community. Allegations of misconduct undermine public confidence in the work of the security and intelligence agencies. It is essential that we have a strong system for overseeing their activities.
	In recent years the context in which the agencies work has changed significantly, with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005. There have been revolutionary changes in the way that people communicate and use technology. Cyber-security is a major and growing issue, and the budgets and public profiles of the agencies have increased substantially. Given all these changes it is important to ensure that scrutiny of the agencies and the wider intelligence community is effective and credible in the eyes both of Parliament and the public.
	The Green Paper makes proposals further to develop the status and remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The Intelligence and Security Committee—that is the existing Committee—has recommended a number of detailed reforms and these have formed the basis of several of the proposals in the Green Paper. Significant reforms that we are floating include changing its status to become a statutory Committee of Parliament, giving Parliament a greater say in ISC appointments and giving the ISC greater powers to require information from the security and intelligence agencies.
	The document seeks views on the appropriate balance of arrangements across the overall system of oversight. The Government welcome scrutiny of their activities in every area, including national security. The Green Paper seeks ways to increase both judicial and other independent scrutiny of such matters to unprecedented levels without undermining protection of the public and whilst maintaining strong safeguards for the rights of individuals. Faced with difficult challenges, Governments are sometimes encouraged to suppose that they need to choose between security on one hand and the rule of law on the other, but that is a false choice. As I hope this Green Paper shows, we must have both. I commend this statement to the House.

Sadiq Khan: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for Justice for giving advance sight of his statement this morning and for the briefing that was provided last week? We are supportive of the attempts by the Government to find a solution to the challenging situations that are encountered in sensitive legal cases. At the outset, I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to our security and intelligence services for the difficult and challenging work they do in keeping our country and citizens safe.
	As the Secretary of State said, the work of the security and intelligence agencies and the sensitive information that they and foreign partners produce is essential to prevent terrorist attacks, disrupt serious crime networks and make the case for Executive action such as deportations and asset-freezing. It is important that we support them with this difficult task, and finding a sensible way of handling intelligence material in judicial proceedings is one way in which we can do that. The starting point for all of us is, I hope, restating the principle of open justice, which is a central tenet of our justice system. However, we also recognise that there are occasions when the use of classified intelligence can prove to be a challenge to maintaining open justice. This is compounded by the fact that we are in a globalised environment where the sharing of intelligence between international allies is crucial to ensuring our national security and interest overseas.
	I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said about the challenges we face in this area. I hope that he has had a chance to read the excellent piece in T he  Independent today written by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary on the importance of strong oversight for strong national security. It recognises that changes are required to ensure that scrutiny of the agencies and the wider intelligence community is effective and credible in the eyes both of Parliament and the public.
	We need, as a matter of urgency, to bolster the safeguards and scrutiny mechanisms concerning issues of security and intelligence. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is proposing measures to enhance the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We support the publication of a Green Paper: it is right and proper to foster a debate on what are challenging issues and to encourage key stakeholders to contribute their thoughts.
	That being said, I want to take this opportunity to ask a number of questions of the Secretary of State. First, who will decide which cases are treated in the way that he sets out in his Green Paper? How many cases does he believe will be dealt with in the manner suggested and what advice has he received from special advocates and from others involved in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission? How will the overall system be scrutinised? Who will undertake the role of overseeing the whole system? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the views of the intelligence and security agencies on these proposals? Are they supportive of what has been recommended in the Green Paper?
	We are happy to work with the Government to increase both judicial and other independent scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies without undermining the protection of the public and while maintaining strong safeguards for the rights of individuals.

Kenneth Clarke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely constructive response, which is important. As I said, these problems were just as acute for the previous Government as they are for the present one, and with the mounting number of actions being brought in this field, the situation is getting steadily worse. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government hope to
	get cross-party agreement. This is a very green paper. We are genuinely open to suggestions as to how to tackle the issue.
	It is very much in the national interest that we do that. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, we intend to protect our system of open justice and at the same time to protect the security of our intelligence agencies and public safety. It is essential that we set aside the ordinary partisan debate and seek to produce a system whereby our public and our allies can be reassured that these matters will be handled sensitively in this country. People will share intelligence with us knowing that it will be used properly, will not be misused and will not be disclosed in areas where it would do damage. At the same time, the public will be able to find out more often the outcome of complaints and actions involving the security services, and have a judge take the matter to a conclusion. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said.
	I have indeed read the article in The Independent produced by the shadow Home Secretary. I have to say that she, too, was briefed on Privy Council terms, I think. I am used to that. I have been briefed on Privy Council terms quite frequently in the past by members of the previous Government and did not always leap out to the nearest newspaper in order to give a reaction to the briefing that I had just had, but of course in the spirit of bipartisanship that I have just proclaimed, I will take her views seriously. She is trying to find reasons for disagreeing with us on both sides of the argument, but sooner or later she will decide whether we are being too draconian and protective or too indifferent to individual liberties. I look forward to further instalments as, no doubt, does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
	The first question that the shadow Justice Secretary asked is key. He asked who will decide that the closed material procedure is the right way to proceed in whatever civil action we are talking about. In the first case it will be put to the court by the Secretary of State, but the final decision will rest with the judge. That is absolutely key. The special advocate is quite entitled to challenge the fact that this evidence is being given under the closed procedure, and the judge will have to be satisfied that on what he or she knows of the claim, it is indeed reasonable to proceed on that basis and there is indeed a threat to national security. That is a considerable reassurance.
	I do not know how many cases there will be. The present pattern is that the numbers of cases is steadily increasing. It is becoming fashionable, almost, to start challenging the courts in encounters of any kind with the intelligence agencies. I do not dismiss all these actions, but there are about 30 coming through the pipeline now, so it is urgent that we address the matter.
	Accountability is like the ordinary accountability for the court process, but the ISC will no doubt play a part in seeing how the proposal is working and its impact on the Security Service. On the Intelligence and Security Committee’s views on its own reform, as I have already said, we have based many of our recommendations on what the Committee itself has said. It is my understanding—I may discover more clearly in a moment, if any of my right hon. Friends intervene—that the ISC is broadly supportive of where we are going. We are undoubtedly strengthening the Committee. It is being made a Committee of Parliament. It will be accountable
	to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister, and it will have increased powers if our proposals gain favour in the course of the consultation.

Alan Beith: I welcome the publication of the Green Paper because it is better to find a way of getting intelligence material into closed court proceedings than for the cases to remain unresolved. May I point out to the Secretary of State that if that is extended to inquests, it will strengthen the case for a chief coroner, which I have put to him? As someone who has served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for a long time, I believe very strongly that that Committee has to have access to operational information in order to do its job properly.

Kenneth Clarke: On the first point, we canvassed opinion on the prospect of it being extended to inquests. There will be a range of views on that, so this is a genuinely green part of the Green Paper. My view is that in cases where families are desperately anxious to have a proper inquiry and for someone to make some judgments about what caused the death of a family member, it is particularly unsatisfactory if the whole thing cannot be brought to some sort of conclusion because the proceedings are too open to members of the public so the evidence cannot be heard. We will therefore consult carefully on inquests. I am not sure that the legislation proposing that we have a chief coroner would have given him any powers to do much about such inquest cases, but no doubt that issue will be raised if we continue to debate whether we need a chief coroner.
	We propose to improve the ISC’s powers to require information to be brought before it. There are of course difficulties and sensitivities relating to operational information, but those will no doubt be raised in response to the Green Paper and are touched on, rather carefully, in the document I have published today.

Jack Straw: On the strengthening of the ISC, I commend what the Secretary of State is proposing. It is 17 years since the ISC was established—a different time and in the shadow of the cold war—and, as he has pointed out, circumstances have changed, so the proposals must be right. On the main part of his statement, I congratulate him on finding what appear to be elegant solutions to the terrible dilemma that successive Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries have faced, as I know, where the pursuit of apparent openness has resulted in injustice being done to the intelligence and security agencies and the plaintiffs, and sometimes defendants, in these actions. Will he confirm that the model he is seeking to extend for criminal-related cases will build on the establishment, many years ago, of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission? He says that the matter is urgent, and I entirely agree, so when does he plan to conclude the consultation and introduce legislation?

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He will not be surprised to learn that, although I made the statement today, I have been working very closely with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, whose interests are crucially involved, as he well knows, having done both jobs. We propose to complete the consultation by January next year, by which time we expect to be able to come back with
	legislation for the House to consider. I hope that people will feed in their views, because the whole point is to try to carry as much consensus in the House as possible. Although we have not yet decided, we will perhaps introduce legislation next year.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We have a further statement to follow and it is of course an Opposition day. I therefore appeal to all Members, without regard to seniority or distinction, for brevity.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. and learned Friend will know well that much of the success of intelligence is based upon co-operation with other countries. Does he agree that one of the most difficult components in the balance we must strike is the need to ensure that we do not prejudice relations with other countries, such as those with whom we have a special intelligence relationship, such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

Kenneth Clarke: Having said that I worked on this with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, I have now seen my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who was extremely closely involved in these matters.

Mark Durkan: And the Attorney-General.

Kenneth Clarke: Yes, and the ladies who made the tea. I compliment them all. I work very closely with colleagues and this is very much a Government Green Paper.
	On co-operation, I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend. We share information and work closely with reliable allies, with whom we are mutually very dependent, and apply the so-called control principle. It would clearly make things impossible if they feared that legal processes in the United Kingdom would mean that the confidentiality of information they share with us was likely to be compromised. It is of great importance to the security of this country that we do not compromise that principle.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Green paper and the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is working closely again with the Home Secretary on this and other issues, but I caution against extending the role of special advocates in any way. I do not know whether he was suggesting that, but there are criticisms of special advocates and the way they deal with information. I welcome the fact that the ISC is to be enhanced, but there have been occasions when the Home Affairs Committee has asked the head of MI5 to appear before us, only to be told that we must visit him. Will this now mean that he will appear before the Home Affairs Committee when we ask?

Kenneth Clarke: Special advocates are a key part of what we are proposing. Controlled material proceedings will involve the use of special advocates, but the Green paper touches on how to improve that use. There are serious problems relating to how much special advocates have to know about the evidence they will hear before
	they can take proper instructions from their clients and how far they can report back to their clients the gist of what has been said. At the moment that works quite well in immigration tribunals, on which this is based, but the Green Paper asks for suggestions on how the role of special advocates can be improved. They are an essential part of the process, but anything that helps us handle the difficulties in using them would be welcome.

Malcolm Rifkind: I warmly welcome the priority given to the protection of information provided by friendly foreign Governments, because, quite frankly, without that protection the provision of that intelligence would simply dry up, to the great detriment of this country. As Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I say how much the Committee welcomes the decision to follow its recommendation that it should become, for the first time, a Committee of Parliament and be given effective powers relating to the operation of the intelligence agencies and not simply relating to policy, procedure and administration, as laid down in the current legislation? That is very much to be welcomed because it will enable Parliament and the public to have confidence that there is genuine, independent and effective oversight of our intelligence agencies.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful for that authoritative response to the Green Paper. I think that it matters on both sides of the House that the ISC becomes a Committee of Parliament and, in a fuller sense, is accountable to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. We can build on the excellent work it has done since it was first established.

Hazel Blears: I, too, welcome the Green paper and its proposals. Maintaining the confidence of our allies in sharing their information is absolutely key, but so is maintaining the British public’s confidence in our legal system. If closed proceedings are to be extended, there will be controversy about the role of special advocates, not only in the House, but more broadly among the public, so the proposals to strengthen their role are particularly important. We must ensure that we get that right so that the public, defendants and the whole system have confidence in a fair trial and at the same time protect and maintain the necessary secret intelligence we have. It is a difficult balance to strike, but I am sure that the Secretary of State is up to it.

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Lady is also a member of the ISC, so I am grateful for her support for our proposals. She is quite right to stress the need for public confidence generally. The present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. The Guantanamo Bay case, which we settled recently, showed exactly what can go wrong. I had to come to the House to announce that we had paid out a total of £20 million, together with costs, because we had ceased to defend the action. Everyone who was inclined to believe the detainees thought that there was secret information that would confirm everything they said, and everyone who was against the detainees thought that the security services had been crippled, that they could have defended themselves and that we were paying
	money to worthless people. Every conspiracy theory could flourish, depending on temperament, before we even started. That is no way to retain public confidence. In our view that definitely requires closed material procedures, which means that we must have special advocates, so we welcome views on how to improve the way in which they carry out that very difficult task.

David Davis: The purpose of state secrecy is to protect the safety of citizens, not to cover up criminality or to avoid embarrassment. In the Binyam Mohamed case, which led to the Gibson inquiry, the very senior judges involved went to a great deal of trouble to balance the requirements of security and open justice, but, from what I understand of this Green Paper, I am concerned that had my right hon. and learned Friend’s proposals been in place a few years ago, what we learned from the Binyam Mohamed case would not have been put in the public domain, that we would not have had the Gibson inquiry and, indeed, that we would not have been able to resolve the issues arising from it. Other nations—Canada, Australia, Germany, France and Italy; all our major allies other than America—are able to be very robust about that. Why can we not be?

Kenneth Clarke: If my right hon. Friend will excuse me, I shall not comment on the Binyam Mohamed case in detail. The judges take one view and others take another, but the Green Paper addresses the problem. One would need the facility for closed material procedures, so the starting point would be a decision, confirmed by the judge, that in the interest of national security the case should take place in closed proceedings and, therefore, not be revealed afterwards. That is an altogether better way of resolving the issue than allowing an argument to break out between judges, the Security Service and everybody else afterwards about whether something has been revealed that should not have been. That was where we were in the case of Binyam Mohamed.
	I cannot remember my right hon. Friend’s second point, but we have got the balance right. Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have said that confidentiality vis-à-vis allies is absolutely crucial, and it is no good currying favour by trying to get behind that, because in fact the safety of people in this country would be endangered if we did not have the full and frank co-operation of allied countries providing us with their intelligence, just as we provide them with ours.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am still seeking brevity, an object lesson in which I know will be provided by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins).

Paul Goggins: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, and I, too, welcome the Green Paper. It is perfectly clear that the balance on disclosure has tipped too far in sensitive cases, and that results in Ministers being constrained in their ability to fulfil their ultimate obligation, which is to protect the public. Given the complexity of the situation, may I ask specifically what plans the Secretary of State has to consult the judiciary?

Kenneth Clarke: I have had some preliminary discussions with the judiciary, and I am quite sure that they will now respond quite fully to our Green Paper, but I agree that, as we are making very important changes to civil procedure, it is essential that we take on board their views. In the end, this House will decide, but it would be most unsatisfactory and be asking for a great deal of future trouble if we started trying to put in civil procedures that the judiciary thought unsatisfactory and, in case law, sought to modify. I have taken great trouble to consult the judiciary, and I will continue to do so. I think that that will be possible, because they are just as concerned as everybody else about national security and, certainly, about open justice, and they will help us to reach a conclusion.

Tom Brake: There will be nervousness at the use of special advocates in cases such as those of the Guantanamo detainees or in inquests. Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way of stopping such cases coming forward is to ensure that international law is observed, that torture is never condoned implicitly or explicitly and that our security services are more effectively monitored so that we can always be certain about the probity of their activities?

Kenneth Clarke: I certainly agree with all my right hon. Friend’s principles, and they are confirmed by the current Government: we are flatly against the use of torture; we do comply with international law; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has published new guidelines for the security and intelligence services; and, as I have said, we certainly want them to be properly accountable.
	No one has ever established malpractice in previous cases, and one thing we are seeking to do is to draw a line under all the past allegations. I have been settling cases and all the rest of it, but no one has ever made an adverse finding against the security services on any of those grounds. Having public confidence, we now want a process whereby we can sustain it.

George Howarth: The Secretary of State will be aware that certain judicial decisions on intelligence sharing have undermined the confidence of our close allies, particularly the United States, with a material effect on some areas in which they are willing to co-operate. Does he not share my concern that our close allies will be concerned to find that he now places on judges the burden of making those decisions? In reality and in our experience, judges look at the conduct of their own proceedings, rather than at national security.

Kenneth Clarke: There has been the one case, the Binyam Mohamed case, which we have touched on, but unsurprisingly no one here has touched on the growing number of cases under the so-called Norwich Pharmacal procedure, on which we make recommendations. It is important that we do not find that the interests of the particular parties lead to highly sensitive intelligence material just getting into the public domain. Having consulted the judiciary, and from my experience of them, I have to say that it is actually wrong to argue that they are indifferent to the needs of national security; they accept that we need clear reform of our processes. We had been waiting for some Supreme Court cases before we produced our final proposals in this Green Paper, and the judiciary think it is time for Parliament
	to make clear how the processes can be modified to enable them to protect justice and liberty on the one hand and national security on the other.

Jessica Lee: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please set out the position in respect of Northern Ireland? It is of course a part of the United Kingdom, and it bears the scars of conflict all too well, so will these measures be applicable in Northern Ireland?

Kenneth Clarke: It is very important that my hon. Friend raises this issue. We have indeed consulted the Northern Ireland Office. The issue applies to Northern Ireland, and these matters come up frequently in the Northern Ireland context. In the course of our consultation on the Green Paper, I expect that we will receive quite a lot of representations based on the experience there.

Chris Bryant: We clearly need some form of closed material procedure, if only to deal with the counter-intelligence threat, which is very strong at the moment, from countries such as Russia, but may I urge the Lord Chancellor to look at whether the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee could not, as is the case with the Public Accounts Committee, always be a member of the Opposition? The Member who currently holds the post could perfectly well have held it when we were in power, so would it not make greater sense for the Chair to be a member of the Opposition?

Kenneth Clarke: Well, we will look at that, because I stress that this is a Green Paper and we are seeking cross-party consensus, which, were we ever to go into opposition again, I trust we would maintain on such subjects. The shadow Home Secretary made the same point, and we will look at it, but the idea that the Chairman’s party allegiance is an important consideration is not immediately obvious to me. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms that the current Chairman, who happens to be a Conservative MP, is a former Foreign Secretary and whom nobody criticises as Chairman, is the right person to be Chairman. A rule that the Chair switches party might be relevant to other Committees, but for this Committee it is not quite as necessary as it obviously is for a Select Committee.

David Burrowes: I commend the Justice Secretary for drawing the politicised sting from the false battle between justice and security. Will he give us his early thoughts on the possibility of creating an inspector-general of the intelligence services in order to ensure that oversight is concentrated in a single body?

Kenneth Clarke: The idea is floated in the Green Paper, and it often comes up. We will obviously look at it, alongside all the other things we are looking at to make the security services more accountable, but it is a suggestion often made, it remains a live issue and we will consider it very carefully.

Fiona Mactaggart: One way we could make the new Committee effective would be to guarantee that its reports were debated in this Chamber. Will the Government commit to making time for such debates, or will they leave it to the Backbench Business Committee?

Kenneth Clarke: That is more a matter for the Leader of the House than for me, but I am just turning to some members of the Committee, and I note that its reports are debated here sometimes. If Members with a close interest in the subject do not consider the frequency of debate to be adequate, however, I suggest that they take it up with my right hon. Friend. I do not think that these particular measures touch upon the frequency of debate, but the Committee is to be made more accountable to Parliament. That is one of the underlying features of our reforms.

Julian Huppert: I am instinctively uncomfortable about keeping evidence secret from those in court cases, but I look forward to seeking the detailed safeguards in the Green Paper. The Secretary of State says that the measures are intended for civil cases, but what assurances can he give the House that he will not consider using similar processes for criminal cases, in which somebody’s liberty might be at risk?

Kenneth Clarke: There is no question of having this in criminal cases—it would be quite impossible. A person could not be convicted on the basis of evidence that he was not allowed to hear and that was withheld from the public. The position will be the same after this as it is now—if evidence is not possessed that can be used in open court, the prosecution has to be dropped and cannot proceed. I share my hon. Friend’s sensitivities about any part of civil proceedings being closed—particularly, for example, in inquests, as I said a moment ago. However, I have come to the conclusion that that is less unsatisfactory than a situation in which the case cannot be heard in civil proceedings, so both parties go away, both claiming they are still right, and nobody has been able to hear all the evidence and give a judgment that, although not everybody will always accept it, will be of considerable reassurance to the general public if someone has heard it all and come to a conclusion.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is vital that we have a common regime across the United Kingdom in dealing with the fight against terrorism? Given that, what talks will he have with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to ensure not only that there is a consistent approach but that there are no loopholes?

Kenneth Clarke: I think that the issues are exactly the same, in relevant cases, in all parts of the United Kingdom. Obviously the situation in Northern Ireland is particularly relevant to all this, so we have already consulted in Northern Ireland with the Justice Minister and others, and we will continue to do so. We are hoping to resolve problems that have been big in Northern Ireland for a long time, and we could not possibly have different principles applying on either side of the Irish sea.

Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there remains a high level of dissatisfaction with the degree of parliamentary scrutiny covering issues in relation to, for instance, extraordinary rendition, which was investigated in Europe in an inquiry that I was associated with but which here in this House was dealt with only by an all-party committee? In those circumstances, does he think that the changes that he is proposing will enable the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into these matters more effectively?

Kenneth Clarke: Yes, indeed; I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind him that we are going to look into rendition and a lot of the other allegations once we get the Gibson inquiry under way. It is clear that that inquiry will go into all the things that have troubled my hon. Friend and other people for some years. Again, we try to do these things in parallel. We are trying to draw a line under the past and then make sure that practice in future attracts less criticism because there is less ground for it. We cannot start the Gibson inquiry until the police have completed their investigations, which are still ongoing; as soon as they have concluded them, the whole question of rendition, among other things, will be looked at by the inquiry.

Andrew Miller: The Secretary of State rightly highlighted the importance of the growing cyber-threat. He is of course aware that the vast majority of targets of those threats are in areas such as finance, utilities and so on, which, historically, we have not regarded as places where security threats would occur. This now requires a much higher level of engagement from employees and people working in those sectors. Will he take steps to ensure that the industries where there are real threats are carried with us in this important regard?

Kenneth Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing in cyber-security. He is right to say that this is now an extremely important issue for many sectors of British industry, as well as for the Government, that complicates matters and gives rise to the need for more actions now. There are myriad circumstances in which national security may be compromised by certain material. Some of the simpler ones arise because the identity of informants might be revealed. In others, the existence of some particular technology of which the other side is blissfully unaware will be revealed if one starts putting in one’s intelligence material. It is just as important to national security that those who are not friends of this country should not always know the capacity of the intelligence services in these cases. That is why the growing problem of cyber-security is a particular reason for strengthening our procedures and strengthening their supervision by this House.

Cabinet Secretary Report (Government Response)

George Young: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Cabinet Secretary’s report on the allegations against my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). In the interests of transparency, the Prime Minister published the report in full yesterday afternoon and copies were made available to Members immediately after publication. The Government have come to the House at the earliest appropriate moment following the report’s publication. It is not usual for the Government to make an oral statement following the resignation of a Minister. However, given the wider implications of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, it is right that the House has an opportunity to consider the Government’s response.
	Before coming to the report, I would like first to set out to the House the changes to the regulations governing Ministers which this Government have already introduced. In May 2010, the Prime Minister published a new ministerial code and committed the Government to an unprecedented level of transparency. The Government are publishing on a quarterly basis details of all Ministers’ meetings with external organisations, including lobbyists, and including meetings with senior media executives; all hospitality received by Ministers; all gifts given and received by Ministers over £140; all Ministers’ visits overseas; contracts over £25,000; special advisers’ salaries over £58,200, and estimated pay bill; special advisers’ gifts and hospitality received; spend on Government procurement cards over £500; and senior officials’ hospitality expenses and meetings with external organisations.
	The Prime Minister also significantly tightened the rules regulating former Ministers when they leave office. Former Ministers are now barred from lobbying Government for two years, as well as having to get the advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for any appointments or employment they wish to take up for a period of two years after leaving office, and the code makes it clear that former Ministers must abide by the advice of the Committee.
	Turning now to the matter in hand, following speculation in the media my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset requested that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence investigate the allegations. The Prime Minister then asked the Cabinet Secretary to establish the facts of the case in relation to allegations in the context of the ministerial code. The interim report prepared by the permanent secretary found that
	“there are areas where the current guidance on propriety and the management of Ministerial Private Offices needs to be strengthened”.
	As the ministerial code makes clear, it is the Prime Minister’s duty to enforce the ministerial code, having consulted with the Cabinet Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has therefore acted at all times in accord with the proper process.
	Last week, my right hon. Friend resigned as Defence Secretary. As he said in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister:
	“I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred”.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted my right hon. Friend’s resignation from Government and his reasons for resigning while making it clear that he viewed him as a superb Defence Secretary, who had implemented fundamental changes that will help to ensure that our armed forces are fully equipped to meet the challenges of the modern era—and I wholeheartedly endorse that view.
	The report by the Cabinet Secretary confirms that my right hon. Friend did indeed breach the ministerial code. The ministerial code requires Ministers to ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise. My right hon. Friend’s actions constituted a clear breach of the ministerial code which he has already acknowledged. However, as recognised in the Cabinet Secretary’s report:
	“Dr Fox has stated to Parliament Mr Werritty had no access to classified documents and was not briefed on classified matters. There is nothing in the evidence we have taken to contradict this.”
	The report also says that
	“there is no evidence from this review that casts doubt on Dr Fox’s statement to Parliament that public funds were not misused”
	or
	“that Dr Fox gained financially in any way from this relationship”.
	The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence has already accepted that there should have been much tighter procedures within the Department and is taking steps to strengthen them to ensure that the ministerial code is properly adhered to.
	The Cabinet Secretary’s report concludes that my right hon. Friend’s close and visible association with Mr Werritty in the UK and overseas, and the latter’s use of misleading business cards, has fuelled a general impression that Mr Werritty spoke on behalf of the UK Government. The risks of right hon. Friend’s associations with Mr Werritty were raised with him by both his private office and the permanent secretary. My right hon. Friend took action in respect of business cards, but clearly made a judgment that his contact with Mr Werritty should continue. This may have been a reasonable judgment had the contacts been minimal and purely personal and had not involved Mr Werritty’s frequent attendance at meetings in the MOD main building and on overseas visits. The damage arose because the frequency, range and extent of the contacts were not regulated as well as they should have been, and that was exacerbated by the fact that the Department was not made aware of all the various contacts.
	The Cabinet Secretary also concluded that the links and a lack of clarity in the roles meant that the donations given to Mr Werritty could give rise to the perception of a conflict of interests. He went on to say that there was an inappropriate blurring of the lines between official and personal relationships. Mr Werritty should not have been provided with access to my right hon. Friend’s diary and itinerary. Nor should he have been allowed to participate in the social elements of the then Defence Secretary’s overseas trips in a way that might have given rise to the impression that he was part of the official party. He should not have had meetings in the MOD with such frequency, as that access may have provided others with a belief that Mr Werritty was speaking for Government and was part of an official entourage. That impression was, of course, reinforced by the business cards that Mr Werritty provided to people.
	The Cabinet Secretary has recommended further strengthening of procedures across Government. There are five specific recommendations in his report and it is worth setting those out in full. The first is:
	“Where discussions take place with external organisations which raise substantive issues relating to departmental decisions or contracts and where an official is not present Ministers should inform their department.”
	The second is:
	“On Ministerial visits, whether in the UK or abroad, departments should make sure there is no confusion about who is and is not a member of the Ministerial party”,
	and the third states:
	“Officials should accompany Ministers to all official visits and meetings overseas at which it is expected that official matters may be raised, and should seek guidance from the FCO if there is any uncertainty about the status of such meetings or the attendance of non-officials at them.”
	The fourth is:
	“Permanent Secretaries should discuss with Ministers at the time of their appointment and regularly thereafter whether any acquaintances or advisers have contractual relationships with the department or are involved in policy development. The Minister and the Permanent Secretary should take action as necessary to ensure there can be no actual or perceived conflict of interest in line with the principles of the Ministerial Code.”
	Finally:
	“Permanent Secretaries should take responsibility for ensuring departmental procedures are followed, and for raising any concerns with Ministers, advising the Cabinet Secretary and ultimately the Prime Minister where such concerns are not resolved.”
	The Prime Minister has accepted those recommendations in full and the Cabinet Secretary is writing to permanent secretaries today to set out the processes that now need to be followed.
	Finally, I will turn briefly to wider action that the Government already intend to take to ensure greater transparency between Ministers and external organisations. The coalition agreement committed us to regulating lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, ensuring even greater transparency. It is worth noting from the Cabinet Secretary’s report that:
	“Whilst Mr Werritty was not a lobbyist, the Government’s commitment to consult on a statutory register of lobbyists will bring further transparency to this area.”
	We intend to produce a consultative document setting out our proposals next month, with an aim of legislating next year. This work is being taken forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House.
	At the end of the last Parliament, public trust in Parliament was at an unprecedented low. This Government are committed to working to rebuild confidence in our political and democratic institutions and we will continue to put in place any measure necessary to ensure that the highest standards rightly expected of our elected representatives are met.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, but what a condemnation it was of the way in which government is being run in this country. It is a matter of deep regret that the Prime
	Minister has chosen not to deal with this statement himself. It is the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the House who is the guardian of the ministerial code, and who has the final say on who is fit to be in his Government. Today, he has ducked those responsibilities.
	When news of the potential wrongdoing at the Ministry of Defence first surfaced, the former Secretary of State for Defence announced an inquiry into himself, but only after he had called the allegations “baseless”. As the revelations mounted daily, the Prime Minister belatedly announced this limited inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. By then, it was apparent to everyone that the ministerial code had been breached. The Secretary of State admitted as much. Why then did the Prime Minister not refer this case to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Philip Mawer?
	What we have today is a far cry from such a full, independent, external inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary has been forced to rely on the word of Adam Werritty and the former Defence Secretary, whose explanations have repeatedly unravelled at the first hint of scrutiny. This report merely scratches the surface of potential misconduct in government. Consequently, it raises more questions than it answers.
	Even in its narrow and limited form, the Cabinet Secretary’s report is damning. It finds the former Defence Secretary’s conduct
	“not appropriate and not acceptable”.
	It reveals, in stark detail, multiple breaches of the ministerial code. The former Defence Secretary has knowingly circumvented the long-established rules that are in place to prevent conflicts of interest from arising. The report shows that wealthy individuals funded Adam Werritty. He was, in effect, a privately funded special adviser. The former Secretary of State’s shadow political operation routinely undermined our civil service structures and their accountability. The report fails to expose the full facts about the money trail. There is no investigation into the benefits that Adam Werritty received. There is no full disclosure of his funders and the purpose behind the donations. Given the Prime Minister’s failure to answer this question earlier today, can the Leader of the House give the House a categorical assurance that no similar practices are taking place anywhere else in this Government?
	I turn now to the details of the report. We need answers on the following issues. The role of the Sri Lanka Development Trust is not considered in the report. Mr Werritty’s presence in Iran, Washington and Israel remains unexplained. We do not know whether Mr Werritty profited from his association with the former Defence Secretary, although we do know about the five-star nature of his taste in flights and hotels. We do not know what those secretive donors, who were in effect Mr Werritty’s paymasters, were promised for their money, nor indeed if they got it. We do not know whether the former Defence Secretary commissioned any work from the MOD as a result of the offline and irregular meetings brokered by Mr Werritty. We do not know which other Ministers and senior staff have met Mr Werritty, because the Prime Minister has refused to publish a full list. That is totally unacceptable. A full list must be published. In order to deal with all those issues, will the Leader of the House agree that further investigation is both essential and urgent?
	Will the Leader of the House also tell the House whether he has initiated an inquiry into the use by the former Defence Secretary of his parliamentary office to run Atlantic Bridge as a charity, and whether he is satisfied that that was proper under parliamentary rules? Some of the key funders of Atlantic Bridge were the key funders of Adam Werritty. They are also the key funders of the Conservative party. The links are complex, but they are deep and well-established.
	We learned yesterday of the meeting between Adam Werritty and two members of the existing Defence team. They must give the House a full explanation of the details of those meetings and their connections to Adam Werritty.
	We also learned in the report that the risks of the former Defence Secretary’s association with Mr Werritty were raised with him by his private office, the permanent secretary, a former permanent secretary and a former Chief of the Defence Staff. He chose to ignore those warnings. Why was he allowed to make that choice? What did the permanent secretary at the MOD then do? Were any of those concerns raised with the Cabinet Secretary and, if so, did the Cabinet Secretary raise them with the Prime Minister? Why was this situation allowed to continue for so long? Why was the former Defence Secretary allowed to treat the ministerial code as if it was an optional extra?
	The report recommends that senior civil servants have greater oversight of ministerial behaviour. Yet the fact remains that it is Ministers who are responsible for their own conduct and the Prime Minister who is the guardian of the ministerial code. He is expected to enforce it, not allow it to be broken multiple times.
	Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to end the
	“cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money”.
	That promise has now been broken. This scandal has only damaged public confidence in the Government further. Meetings without civil servants; money off the books; luxury social visits in between visits to our brave servicemen and women; and today, the Prime Minister’s contempt on the matter was revealed. Simply saying that the Defence Secretary has resigned is not good enough. The Government need to take responsibility for this self-inflicted crisis. The House needs answers to the unanswered questions, or people will only conclude that this Government have something to hide.

David Anderson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. We do not take points of order in the middle of statements, or at any time in statements, only afterwards.

George Young: I will go through the issues that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised. No Prime Minister has ever made a statement to the House following the resignation of a Minister. In circumstances such as these, when there has been a report on a breach of the code, there has normally been a written ministerial statement. There has never before been an oral statement in circumstances such as these, but this Government
	have come to the Dispatch Box at the earliest stage, having made a written ministerial statement and set out our proposals.
	The hon. Lady said that the Cabinet Secretary or the Prime Minister had not followed due process. If she looks at paragraph 1.3 of the ministerial code, she will see that it states:
	“If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.”
	That is exactly what he has done. We have established that there has been a breach of the code, the Secretary of State has resigned and we have a comprehensive report identifying the breaches and making recommendations for the future. It is not a superficial report; it is a comprehensive piece of work by the Cabinet Secretary, and the House should be grateful for it.
	I turn to the specific questions that the hon. Lady asked. Other Ministers are perfectly happy to make it clear whether they have met Mr Werritty. On whether similar practices are going on throughout Government, if she has any evidence I would like her to bring it forward. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must not chunter or, worse still, yell at the Leader of the House. He must be heard.

George Young: It is worth noting that paragraph 11 of the Cabinet Secretary’s report states:
	“I am of the view that this is an issue which was specific to Dr Fox.”
	The hon. Member for Wallasey raised a number of other issues, some of which are for other bodies to deal with. If she looks at paragraph 1 of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, she will see that it states:
	“Since then, more allegations about Dr Fox’s conduct have arisen many of which will be the responsibility of others to answer, including the Electoral Commission which regulates political parties and their funding.”
	She also asked a specific question on a matter that is the responsibility of the Charity Commission.
	The hon. Lady then asked what went wrong in the Ministry of Defence. If she reads the report, she will see that what went wrong was that the permanent secretary did not raise the issue with the Cabinet Secretary, who would then have raised it with the Prime Minister. There is a specific recommendation in the report that that situation should not happen again, and that if there are any future instances, the permanent secretary should notify the Cabinet Secretary, who will notify the Prime Minister.
	I say very gently to the hon. Lady that her party is not negotiating from a position of strength on this issue. I think what the public want is a serious debate about what went wrong, and they want Members on both sides of the House to join together in driving up standards in public life.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members who came into the Chamber after the start of the statement—there were several of them on both sides of the House—that they certainly should not expect to
	be called. It would be much better if they did not stand. This is an Opposition day and there is pressure on business, so brevity is of the essence.

Andrew Tyrie: I warmly welcome the Leader of the House’s statement. In it, he said that senior civil servants “accepted that there should have been much tighter procedures within the Department”. Will he say specifically what is wrong with existing procedures, and what steps he is taking to ensure that the failing lies with those procedures rather than with the action or inaction of the civil servants themselves?

George Young: I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement. What went wrong was that the permanent secretary, having raised the matter with the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State having persisted in the behaviour that she found disturbing, did not take further action. The matter should have been escalated to the Cabinet Secretary, who would then have notified the Prime Minister. A specific recommendation is going out to all permanent secretaries today that should there be a recurrence in future, it should be escalated. Had that happened in this case, the issue probably would have been addressed at a much earlier stage.

Ben Bradshaw: I feel sorry for the Leader of the House for his being forced to make this statement because the Prime Minister does not have the gumption to do so.
	Given that it was quite clear on day one of this scandal to anybody who has bothered to read the ministerial code that the Minister in question not only broke it but drove a coach and horses through it, why the dither and delay from the Prime Minister? Does that not show yet again that we have a Prime Minister who does not do detail and does not have a clue what is going on in the rest of his Government?

George Young: If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that is way over the top. When Lord Mandelson resigned not once but twice, the Prime Minister did not come to the House to make a statement. In this case there is a statement from a Minister on the action that we propose to take to stop any recurrence. Far from the Prime Minister dithering or delaying, he asked for something to be on his desk on Monday. He then asked the Cabinet Secretary to produce a report. Out of decency and fair play, the Prime Minister decided to wait until the report was available rather than taking precipitate action. That is not dither and delay; that is fair play.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend not think it rather strange that some of those who are campaigning hard for a register of lobbyists did nothing over the past 13 years and created a lobbyists’ free-for-all? Does he not also think that it is strange for the Labour party, which found itself in the Bernie Ecclestone lobbying scandal, to now pretend it is Mother Teresa?

George Young: My hon. Friend reminds the House that, as I said a moment ago, the Opposition are not negotiating from a position of strength. It is indeed the
	case that from 1997 to last year, no action was taken to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists. When the Public Administration Committee recommended that in 2009, the Labour Government specifically rejected it, and they voted against other measures that would have promoted transparency, so I do not think we have any lessons to learn on this matter from Labour Members.

John Cryer: Is Mr Werritty the only unofficial representative acting on behalf of a Cabinet Minister or a Minister of State?

George Young: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence—[Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I think people should be careful before making general allegations without any specific evidence at all. This is a—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the House, but may I say to the House that he is a person of unfailing courtesy? I think that would be accepted on both sides of the House. He does not yell at other Members, and—[Interruption.] Order. And other Members should not yell at him.

George Young: I quoted a passage from paragraph 11 of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, in which he stated that he believed the situation was “specific to Dr Fox”. I do not think there is any evidence at all that Mr Werritty had a similar relationship with any other Minister in the Government. If the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) has any evidence of any irregularity, I think he should put it forward and substantiate what he has said.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the Leader of the House’s point about a register of lobbyists, and I add my voice to the call for a statutory register. Does he find it surprising to hear some of the comments from the Opposition, given that under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), union officials were regularly in No. 10 unofficially attending meetings?

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend that this should not become part of the political currency between the two parties. On the issue of lobbying, as I think he knows, we plan to publish a consultation document early next month on our proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists, with a view to legislating next year.

Michael Meacher: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s seemingly all-encompassing catchment in the designation of lobbyists, but I would like assurance on two points. First, will he confirm that the ultimate funding of all lobbyists, think-tanks and all others who seek to exert influence will be revealed on an open public register that is readily accessible and tell us what the sanctions will be if that is not done? Secondly, since all those who seek to manipulate always want to escape detection, how will he deal with the admittedly difficult situation in which formal meetings suddenly morph into informal meetings where significant commitments might be made but remain undetected?

George Young: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The answer to the first section of his question is yes, that is exactly what we have in mind: an open, accessible register of statutory
	lobbyists. On the other issues, we propose to consult on what exactly a lobbyist is. I think the definition should embrace what people outside generally believe to be lobbying and should be comprehensive. On the question of what activity is then caught, we would be very grateful for his views during the consultation process.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome the Leader of the House’s statement? The Select Committee on Public Administration is looking into how we can do more to fix broken politics. I particularly congratulate him on ending the sofa government that we saw in the past as well as the tidal wave of sleaze, and I urge him to take action on the revolving door that still persists for former Ministers of this House.

George Young: The revolving door is an issue I addressed in my statement and we are tightening up the process for it. I am delighted to hear that the Public Administration Committee, which originally proposed the statutory register in its report, is thinking of returning to this issue and I hope that it will inform the Bill when it is introduced.

Gisela Stuart: On 10 October, I asked the then Defence Secretary when he was first made aware of concerns by his permanent secretary. He said that
	“I was not aware of any direct approach from them. The first direct approach I can remember was when my current permanent secretary came to me in August”.—[Official Report, 10 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 30.]
	That leads to two questions. Either the then Defence Secretary misled the House and he was made aware of that before then or the previous permanent secretary has some serious questions to answer. These things have been going on since he took office and for more than a year concerns have arisen and nobody has done anything. The civil service must look at its own conduct in how it makes people aware when things go wrong.

George Young: I think it is clear from the report that things did go wrong in the Ministry of Defence. That was accepted in the permanent secretary’s initial report. Procedures were not followed and we are learning from that and ensuring that there is no recurrence.

James Morris: Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has resigned and that the Cabinet Secretary’s report could not be clearer that there was no breach of national security and that my right hon. Friend did not gain financially from any of these arrangements? Is not the most important thing now for the debate to move on? We have important operations in Libya and Afghanistan that we must focus on in the national interest.

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have commissioned a report, we have found out what went wrong, we have made recommendations to put it right and we have learned the lessons. I agree that we should now move on.

David Anderson: Both in questions to the Prime Minister and during this statement today, the question of whether other Ministers have behaved
	in a similar manner has been raised. The Leader of the House has made it clear that anyone who wants to make allegations should do so. I do not think that people are making allegations—they are raising the general worry that the rest of the population of this country feels. If someone as experienced as the former Secretary of State allowed this to go on, thinking that it was reasonable, surely it is possible that other Ministers, equally unwittingly, might be doing the same thing. Would it not benefit us all if the Cabinet Secretary were to look into all these things to ensure that there is not any other concern?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but in the last Parliament a number of Ministers from his party had to resign. We never made any suggestion that because one Minister had broken the code, all Ministers had broken the code, and it is important that similar accusations should not be made in this Parliament.

Chris Bryant: The trouble with the idea of trying to move on is that we are seeing a pretty shabby pattern in which the Prime Minister is given evidence, refuses to look at it but holds on for dear life to as many of his friends as he can. It happened with Coulson and it has happened again now. Now there is evidence about the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and his apparent adviser, Miriam Maes. Will there be an investigation into that, too?

George Young: On the first point, to say that the Prime Minister refused to look at the evidence is simply absurd as he looked at it, published it and has acted on it. As for the issues concerning the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the matter has been resolved. The person concerned is an adviser to the Department and not to a Minister.

David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that some good has come out of all this, as it has shown up the whole murky world of various shady and dubious lobbyists and various individuals who have contributed heavily to the Tory party? One thing is absolutely clear: the Tory party has not changed from last time it was in office.

George Young: It would be easier to take the hon. Gentleman seriously on this had he not voted against a specific amendment to promote transparency in lobbying.

Jonathan Ashworth: A few moments ago, the Leader of the House said—if I heard him correctly—that other Ministers would be perfectly happy to reveal whether they had meetings with Mr Werritty. Will he therefore tell the House when we will get a full and comprehensive list of all meetings between Ministers and Mr Werritty and whether it will extend to senior officials, too?

George Young: It has already been put in the public domain for a number of Government Departments. It will be put in the public domain by the rest of the Departments very shortly.

Huw Irranca-Davies: How many Government Front-Bench Members have received donations from Pargav Ltd and will the Leader of the
	House investigate that? May I urge on him caution about the defence of bringing forward evidence? The last time that was used was on the 10th of this month and the former Secretary of State subsequently resigned, having used that very defence.

George Young: Any donations that Ministers or any Members of the House have received from a company such as Pargav have to be put in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the fact that the Government are adopting the procedure of coming forward today and making a statement, which is a departure from previous practice and is to be welcomed. One of the recommendations of the report is that greater responsibility should be given to permanent secretaries to ensure that departmental procedures are followed, yet in this case the permanent secretary at the MOD has already accepted that there should have been much tighter procedures within the Department. What confidence can the public have, given the obvious failings within the Department at that senior level?

George Young: The recommendations apply not just to the permanent secretary but, for example, to the private office as well. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for this new procedure and I hope that it is one that I do not have to follow too often.

Andy Slaughter: How is what the Leader of the House has said about conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the ministerial code be consistent with the approach the Government have taken in the case of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has been relieved of those areas of his portfolio where such a conflict might occur?

George Young: That matter has been dealt with by the Cabinet Secretary.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Leader of the House said in his statement that Mr Werritty was not a lobbyist. How then will the register and the reforms that he proposes affect the behaviour of someone like Mr Werritty?

George Young: I did not say that I did not think that he was a lobbyist but that the Cabinet Secretary did not think that he was a lobbyist. When we publish the consultation paper next month, we will be open to consultation on what a lobbyist is. In the view of many people, the definition should include Mr Werritty.

Kevin Brennan: Leaving political differences aside, it is a genuine shame that one of the few members of the Government from an ordinary background has been forced to resign. Will the Leader of the House tell us how many donations were solicited by the former Defence Secretary, how much those donations were valued at and why he solicited them?

George Young: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), but he was not forced to resign. He chose to resign last Friday and set out the reasons for that in his letter.

Paul Flynn: Is it not the prime duty of the Leader of the House to try to restore public faith and confidence in this institution? We handled the expenses scandal in an atrocious way that damaged us greatly. Would it not be a terrible mistake if we ignored the real abuses of the revolving door and of lobbying and went ahead and indulged in a process of blaming each other? If we are going to be successful in convincing the public, we must follow the Public Administration Committee. Otherwise, the public will look at this debate today and say, “Same old MPs, same old sleaze.”

George Young: I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s question will be the last. On that consensual note, I hope we can draw these exchanges to a close.

Personal Statement

Liam Fox: Two weeks ago, I visited Misrata in Libya, and I met a man who showed me photographs of his dead children. A few days later, I resigned from the Cabinet. One was an unbearable tragedy, the other was a deep personal disappointment. I begin with that necessary sense of proportion.
	As I said in the House last week,
	“I accept that it was a mistake to allow distinctions to be blurred between my professional responsibilities and my personal loyalty to a friend.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 23.]
	I accepted then that it was a mistake to attend a meeting with a potential supplier without an official present and, with hindsight, I should have been more willing to listen to the concerns of those around me. I have attempted to be clear and transparent on all the issues raised.
	I would like to say again that I am very sorry to my colleagues in the House and to all those who feel let down by the decisions I have made. I have always believed in personal responsibility, and I accept the Cabinet Secretary’s conclusions. I am pleased at the explicit acknowledgment that I neither sought, expected nor received any financial gain. That was being widely and wrongly implied. I also welcome the clarification of the fact that no national security issues were breached, that no classified documents were made available, and that no classified matters were briefed. Those accusations, too, were widely made and are deeply hurtful.
	The ministerial code has been found to be breached, and for this I am sorry. I accept that it is not only the substance but perception that matters, and that is why I chose to resign. I accept the consequences for me without bitterness or rancour. I do not blame anyone else, and I believe that you do not turn your back on your friends or family in times of trouble. However, it is unacceptable that family and friends who have nothing to do with the central issues should be hounded and intimidated by elements of the media, including in this case elderly relatives and children. It is difficult to operate in the modern environment, as we know, where every bit of information, however irrelevant or immaterial, is sensationalised, and where opinions or even accusations
	are treated as fact. It was particularly concerning that Harvey Boulter, who was present at the Dubai meeting and subsequently the defendant in a blackmail case, was treated so unquestioningly.
	Last week’s media frenzy was not unprecedented, and it happens where a necessary free press and politics collide, but I believe that there was, from some quarters, a personal vindictiveness—even hatred—that should worry all of us. But just as these events can bring out the worst in human nature, they also bring out the best. I have been touched, and frankly overwhelmed, by huge numbers of letters, e-mails and calls, from friends and strangers alike, in particular from my constituents in North Somerset. That has meant more to me than anyone can know.
	I would also like to thank my parliamentary colleagues, including those in the Cabinet, for their strong and generous support, which shows politicians at their best—although I apologise that it may take me some time to get round to thanking all of you in person.
	I am also indebted to my loyal staff for their support, in particular to my special advisers, who find themselves out of work as a result of my decision. I will miss the Ministry of Defence and the fantastic people who work there, military and civilian. It has been a life-changing experience and a great honour to work with some of the bravest and best people in our country. I am proud of what we have achieved there in 17 months and I will help in any way my successor, who I know will do an absolutely excellent job.
	I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support. It is not easy to watch someone you care about being attacked in a very aggressive and prolonged way. We choose this life; they do not. Of course, I would like above all to thank my wife, Jesme, who has dealt with this whole business with her usual grace, dignity and unstinting support.
	Finally, it is not always easy to be in public life, but it is an honour, so I would like to thank all the party leaders, including the Prime Minister, who have enabled me to serve on the Front Bench for 17 consecutive years. I will give this Government my full support as they rescue our economy from the mess we inherited.
	Most of all, I would like to thank my constituents in North Somerset for giving me the honour to represent them in the House of Commons and the opportunity to serve.

Point of Order

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take this point of order if it is not about any of the matters about which we have just heard.

Thomas Docherty: This morning’s Scottish newspapers have gained information from Alex Salmond and the Scottish National party Government about a commercially sensitive deal for a £1billion project that will potentially take place in my constituency. It is clearly unacceptable to the House for an SNP Government to breach such commercial discussions. Can you advise what opportunities would be available to the House to discuss this important issue in the coming days?

Mr Speaker: I think I can. I can advise the hon. Gentleman, a doughty and indefatigable campaigner on behalf of his constituents, to use every ounce—and there are many—of his ingenuity, through the Order Paper and in other ways, further and at greater length to draw attention to his dissatisfaction. I feel sure that that is what he will do.

Fee Charging Debt Management Companies (Promotion of Free Debt Management Advice)

Motion for leave to  bring in  a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Yvonne Fovargue: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require fee charging debt management companies to inform potential clients of the availability of free advice on debt management; and for connected purposes.
	I have brought forward this Bill to level the playing field between the fee-charging debt management companies, which can spend a considerable amount of money on advertising, and the free agencies, which put all their money into providing a service, and which consequently might not be as well known. In fact, a Goggle search for “debt advice”, or even for “citizens advice” brings up two debt managements companies at the top of the list, which promise to
	“wipe off 75% of your debts”.
	Individuals who are looking for a solution to their debts are essentially making a distress purchase. They have realised that their debts are mounting and made that difficult decision to seek help to deal with them. However, searching and deciding on a debt management solution is not like looking for other services. Many people have struggled alone for a considerable time and feel ashamed; they might not have told even their family and friends. It is not like going to a neighbour and asking them to recommend a plumber, and I have never yet heard of anyone asking their mates in the pub whether they have been in debt and who helped them to get out of it.
	Instead people turn to the internet or advertisements, or even to a company that has cold-called them. If they are lucky, they go to a citizens advice bureau, but very few have heard of Payplan, National Debtline or the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, which could all help with free solutions tailored to the individual.
	What is the problem with fee-charging debt management agencies, beyond the obvious contradiction of charging individuals to get out of their debts? It is estimated that 375,000 people in the UK are on commercially provided debt management plans, costing them £250 million in debt management fees each year. The CCCS estimates that for a debt of £30,000, a client of a debt management company pays £6,000 in fees to that company, and that they extend the life of their debt for 18 months.
	Unfortunately, too many of those companies take advantage of people when they are at their most vulnerable. Many people end up in a worse financial situation than when they first sought help. There is significant evidence of companies providing misleading information about their services. They claim to be able to write off debts and charges, and to give free advice, although fees are involved. There is also evidence of some payday lenders acting as an introducer to a debt management company. If that is not a case of, “We’ll get you into debt and then tell you about somebody who you can pay to get out of it,” I do not know what is.
	It has been reported that rather than promoting free debt advice, some fee-charging companies have told callers that the CAB is not a specialist money adviser,
	and not to deal with it on a one-to-one basis. One individual approached a bureau for help after a company refused to cancel a plan that he signed up for within the 14-day cooling-off period. After the CAB intervened the agreement was cancelled, but the company told the client that the bureau would not contact the creditors, so she risked court action by doing what she was doing. High management fees, particularly up-front fees, can also be a particular problem. In one case, an individual was cold-called by a debt management company and paid an up-front fee of £1,000 before receiving any advice at all. I had a constituent who paid £300 to a fee-charging debt management agency, only to find out that they then had no disposable income, after which the agency referred them to my local CAB.
	Up-front fees are not the only problem, however. Ongoing fees are also an issue, as companies need to recoup their costs early in the life of the agreement. When I worked for an advice agency, I saw a client who had been paying £80 a month to a debt management company for six months, not one penny of which had gone to her creditors. She said that she did not know where to go, so she looked on the internet and contacted the company. She was considerably upset when she realised that her debt had actually increased, despite those payments, because the interest had not been frozen. Also, debt management companies cannot and do not offer the full range of debt remedies available to an individual, and on occasion have even failed to inform clients of the need to pay their priority creditors first. Another CAB client reported that she was encouraged to make offers via a debt management company to her non-priority creditors, for which they took a fee. As a result she struggled with her mortgage payments, fell into arrears and is now worried about losing her home.
	The number of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service is rising. There have been 457 new complaints in 2010-11, a staggering 54% of which were upheld in favour of the consumer. The complaints generally fall into two categories. The first is poor administration:
	money paid to a company is kept in that company’s accounts for a considerable time rather than being paid to the creditors. The second is when, as I have described, a high proportion of the money paid is retained by the company to cover its costs rather than being paid to creditors. This demonstrates that it is not only the individuals who suffer detriment but their creditors, who could be paid much more money more quickly.
	It is surely obvious, therefore, that making people aware of free quality agencies, which make sure that all the money paid goes to the creditors, will benefit both parties. An argument often used by the fee-charging sector is that there is insufficient capacity in the free sector. I agree that this needs to be carefully monitored and that a sustainable cross-governmental strategy for the provision of free debt advice is essential. However, a recent partnership between the CCCS and Citizens Advice has demonstrated that the agencies are working together to direct people to the most appropriate form of advice and to ensure that the most expensive form of delivery, the face-to-face advice, is kept for the people who need it most—the most vulnerable—and that people do not have to turn to the fee-charging debt management sector through lack of available free advice.
	No one should suffer through ignorance of the services available to help them, and I believe that the Bill will provide for individuals to be informed of the full range of agencies able to support them, instead of allowing them to fall into the hands of some of the fee-charging companies that propel them into further debt and despair.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Yvonne Fovargue, Nic Dakin, Phil Wilson, Sheila Gilmore, Alex Cunningham, Teresa Pearce, Justin Tomlinson, Damian Hinds, Tracey Crouch, Tessa Munt, Jonathan Edwards and Dr Julian Huppert present the Bill.
	Yvonne Fovargue accordingly presented the Bill
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 237).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Unallotted day]

Energy Prices

[Relevant documents:  The Fourth Report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Electricity Market Reform, HC 742 and the Government response, HC 1448, and the Sixth Report from the Committee, Ofgem’s Retail Market Review, HC 1046, and the  Government response, HC 1544.]

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the energy market does not serve the public interest and is in need of urgent reform; notes with concern research by OFGEM showing that average household energy bills have risen, while energy companies’ profit margins have soared; recognises that, with a cold winter forecast and Government support cut, millions of families will struggle to heat their homes; believes that energy tariffs are confusing and unfair, meaning that 80 per cent. of people currently pay more for their energy than they need to, and that consumers who try to switch are often given inaccurate information; further believes that to tackle climate change, build a new low carbon economy and make the UK a world leader in green energy, which will bring new industry and jobs to the UK, people need to know that the energy market is fair; and calls on the Government to investigate mis-selling and ensure consumers are compensated, introduce a simple format to be applied across all tariffs, so that people can compare the full range of energy deals at a glance, increase transparency by requiring energy companies to publish their trading data, reform the energy market to break the dominance of the Big Six by requiring them to sell power into a pool, allowing new businesses to enter the market, increasing competition and driving down energy bills for families and businesses, and demand that energy companies use their profits to help reduce energy bills this winter.
	I am pleased to move this Opposition day motion, and it is good to see the Secretary of State in his place this afternoon; we were all concerned for his well-being after his no-show on “Newsnight” on Monday. It was the day of that amazing energy summit, yet he was nowhere to be seen. That tells us just how well the summit went. As today’s report on fuel poverty highlights, the stakes could not have been higher: according to the National Grid Company’s forecast last week, this winter could be as bitter as last year, which saw the coldest December on record. Moreover, energy bills have risen by more than 20% this year alone, driving inflation to the second highest level in Europe, and have risen by more than 50% in the past four years, which means that the average family is now paying £1,345 a year just to keep the lights on and the house warm.
	That matters. People do not have a choice about whether to consume energy. At the same time as more than one quarter of families are struggling to afford their energy bills, more price rises are on the horizon and more families are worried about how they will make ends meet, yet energy companies are enjoying soaring profits. On Monday the Secretary of State got the big six energy firms, which between them control 99% of the market, into the same room. With them were consumer groups such as Which? and Consumer Focus. It was the ideal opportunity to get a grip on spiralling energy bills, but what was the big idea? What was the bold plan? What was the new policy?
	We were given two words that will strike terror into the hearts of the big six energy firms, two words that will give reassurance to millions of families worried about how they are going to heat their homes this
	winter: “Go compare”. I honestly thought that the Prime Minister was going to come dressed as the opera singer Gio Compario and force the summit’s reluctant audience to endure a chorus. He might as well have done, for all the good that came out of it. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State could only look on—as the Prime Minister spoke and the public relations shots were taken—reduced to the role of the Prime Minister’s meerkat.

Charles Walker: Does the hon. Lady agree that we should have been increasing generating capacity and building more nuclear power stations over the past 15 years?

Caroline Flint: That is why, as we left office, we set in train the opportunity to put in place a more balanced energy generation selection for everyone, and that is why many of those policies are now being carried forward by the present Government.
	But let us talk about this winter, this week, as the cold snap hits, and about the prices that families up and down the country are facing. Let us talk about the outcome of that energy stunt. There will be no overhaul of the energy market to break the stranglehold of the big six, there will be no radical simplification of the tariffs available, and there will not even be a pause for thought about whether cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners is the right thing to do, even though the Prime Minister accused Labour of lying when we warned, before the general election, that the Tories would cut them. The only message was: go compare. However, people can only go and compare if they have easy, accurate, transparent information on pricing, which we do not have. The number of tariffs on offer has risen from 180 three years ago to more than 400 today: there were more than 70 new tariffs just this year. That does not help consumer choice; it hinders it.

Robert Flello: My constituents, when they look at this vast array of different tariffs, step back and think, “Well, what’s the point? These six firms are effectively in cahoots anyway. They are almost operating a cartel”. They think, “Why bother wading through all this treacle and looking at the different tariffs, because we know that we’ll switch to one company and then, two minutes later, it will up its prices too.”

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes the point that many of our constituents are making about mis-selling, and the barrage of information that does not allow them to make a clear choice. If there are too many tariffs that are complicated to understand and difficult to compare, people cannot make informed decisions about which deal would be best for them.

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Lady will be aware that energy prices soared in Britain between 1997 and 2010. Heating oil prices increased in real terms by 130%, gas prices by 71% and coal prices by 61%. Does she think that that inspires confidence in her approach?

Caroline Flint: That is one of the reasons why in 2007 we started discussions across Europe, as part of the new third energy package, to ensure that national regulators had more powers and to introduce more competition
	and transparency. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has been calling for ever since he was Energy Secretary, including now, as leader of the Labour party. It is interesting that we are only now beginning to see signs that the Government are getting behind the Miliband deal.
	[
	Laughter.
	]
	It is absolutely true.
	The Secretary of State likes to lecture us about the need to check and switch, but what does his own Energy Minister say? Earlier this year he poured his heart out to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change about his struggle to find a cheaper deal. He said:
	“I went on line to compare my tariffs and I was so confused by the options that I decided to stick where I was”.
	That is what is happening to our constituents up and down the country. If the Minister himself cannot work out how to get a better deal, what hope is there for the rest of us? No wonder 80% of people are paying more for their energy than they need to.

Caroline Dinenage: I recognise the passion with which the right hon. Lady speaks. I share her passion, because many people in my constituency, particularly pensioners, have been struck with fuel poverty. However, I am beginning to ask myself whether she has been asleep for the last 13 years as prices have gone up. This has not suddenly happened overnight; the problem has got increasingly worse over the last 13 years. What does she say about that?

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that the problem has got even worse in the last year. Prices have been going up, even though wholesale prices have been going down. In its recent reports Ofgem has quite rightly complained about the way the energy big six blame wholesale prices when they put their prices up, but when wholesale prices go down they are not as quick to send them down the other way. It is just not good enough.

Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that shopping around, as people are being told to do, is a totally hopeless choice when they are suffering so badly, in many different ways, from rising prices, and not just fuel prices? Given the profits that the energy companies are making, does she think that they should make a contribution by cutting prices?

Caroline Flint: Absolutely, and that is in our motion today. Every Member of this House has a chance to vote to urge the energy companies to share some of their profits with the people who are their customers and to get prices down. As my hon. Friends have said, the problem is that even when people try to find a better package they do not get the right information.

Michael Weir: Are things not, in fact, even worse than that? People can reduce the amount that they pay by switching only if they pay by direct debit, which acts against those on the lowest incomes who do not have bank accounts, and those of our constituents who do not wish to set up direct debits as they want the ability to decide which bills they pay when, in these difficult times.

Caroline Flint: Absolutely. There is no point in the companies having a system that does not recognise the situation of ordinary families. The National Pensioners Convention talks about the fact that fewer than six in 10
	pensioners have access to a computer to go online. It is not fair or right. The onus should be on the companies, not the public. However, all the Secretary of State could do this week was blame the public: “It’s your fault you’re not getting out there and getting a better deal.” “It’s your fault you’re not saving yourselves £200 a time.” He has got a lot to answer for, because he has just sat back and let people suffer.

Andrew George: The right hon. Lady bemoans the unfairness in the direct debit discounts and the way in which those suffering from fuel poverty are treated by the system—there is also an issue with rising block tariffs—but all those things happened in the 13 years of the Labour Government. She is absolutely right to raise those important issues, but what did her Government do in that time to address them?

Caroline Flint: For a start, we had the most ambitious programme to help people in fuel poverty deal with their bills—the Government are cutting those measures—but we also started discussions across Europe about having Europe-wide legislation to tackle some of those issues by not only giving greater powers to regulators but ensuring more openness and transparency. I will talk about this more later, but I am sad to say that we are seven months overdue in implementing that legislation and putting into statute powers that we can use to control parts of the market. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say something more about why the package that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was negotiating when he was Climate Change Secretary has not been implemented.
	Research published by the consumer group Which? showed that when people contacted the big six energy firms to ask how they could save money—that is, when they made the effort that the Secretary of State lectures us about—a third of them were given misleading advice. Either those customers were deliberately misled or the tariffs were so complicated that not even the staff selling them understood them. Can we imagine any other product or service where we would accept four out of five customers being overcharged—not just once, but time and time again—and nothing being done about it? When four out of five families are paying over the odds for their electricity and gas it shows how out of touch this Government are to lecture people about shopping around.
	People do not want a Government who blame them for the fact that their energy bills have gone up. Families and businesses that do the right thing, work hard and play by the rules cannot understand why this Government are not only allowing electricity and gas companies to increase bills by so much, but seem to be apologising on their behalf. On Monday the Energy Secretary told the “Today” programme:
	“Energy companies are not the Salvation Army”,
	and said that he expected them to
	“earn respectable returns for their shareholders”.
	We know that the energy companies are not the Salvation Army, but it should not be Government policy to drive people into the arms of the Salvation Army either.

Stephen Barclay: Can the right hon. Lady explain why, in 2000, the Labour Government set a 10-year target of securing
	10% of electricity from renewables, with a starting point of 2.7%, yet failed to achieve it, adding only 6% in 10 years? In 2009 the current Leader of the Opposition set a legally binding target of 31%—in other words, signing us up to deliver 21% extra when we had already failed to achieve the 10% target in the preceding 10 years. Could she please explain that?

Caroline Flint: I am happy to support the Labour Government’s ambitious plans to be at the forefront of supporting renewable energy—and also, I should add, cracking the whip to make the energy companies play their part. Part of the problem is that the energy companies seemed to be on a mission to make us use more energy and pay more, rather than helping us to reduce our energy consumption and therefore pay less. We have nothing to apologise for on that front. What we are talking about today is what is happening this week, as the frost hits, and this winter, when people will face not only high energy bills but higher food prices, and wage freezes in the public and private sectors, in a country where unemployment is going up and people are feeling the squeeze on all fronts.
	The question is: what can this Government do about that now? The answer, from Monday’s energy summit, seems to be: precious little. We do not think that this Government are doing enough. On Monday the Secretary of State could not bring himself to question whether it is right, at a time when millions of families and businesses are struggling with energy bills, that energy companies should be enjoying soaring profit margins, which are up more than eightfold since June. We do not think that it is, which is why we welcome The Sun’s “Keep it Down” campaign, and why we said that the Government should have used Monday’s summit to tell the energy giants to give up some of their profits and cut bills this winter. Was it any surprise that the BBC correspondent reported that the energy companies were “delighted” with the outcome of the summit? Well, they would be, because they were not asked to do anything.

Jim Shannon: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the energy companies need to be regulated, and that, along with regulation, we need initiatives to reduce the supply of energy that they get, over a 12-month or even a 24-month period? Does she also agree that such arrangements would need to be regulated and guaranteed under legislation? Regulation of the companies and a reduction in the supplies that they give out, guaranteed by legislation, will be the way forward.

Caroline Flint: We are clearly on record as saying that we need to reform this distorted market. We need openness and transparency, and we need simpler tariffs. It is not enough just to tell people to navigate themselves around the increasing number of available tariffs that are no good. This is also about breaking up the big six and opening up the energy market to new suppliers. We are clear about that, and today we are forcing the Government to tell the House whether they, too, are clear about it.

John Robertson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at John Hills’s report on fuel poverty? He talks about the thousands
	of people who will die from hypothermia this winter. Does not that make any arguments about who is at fault completely superfluous? The fact is that we have to prevent those people from dying. What are the Government going to do about this? Are they going to put profit before people’s lives?

Caroline Flint: I was pleased to be able to have a meeting with John Hills this morning to discuss his report. I would not want to make a direct comparison in this regard, but it is telling that more people die of cold in the winter than die on our roads. This is about recognising that, while certain actions will take time, we need to determine what can be done here and now. The sad thing is that Ministers are lecturing families and firms about insulating and saving, even though they have cut Warm Front by 70% and will not give anyone any information about their green deal for homes, which will not be ready for another year anyway. Labour invested more than £300 million in Warm Front during our last year in office, helping families to keep warm and save energy. We helped home owners on modest incomes to modernise their heating systems, but today that scheme has a budget of just £110 million, and it is due to end in April 2013. The Government could take action right now: they could also stand up to the energy companies and tell them to help people to help themselves. In doing that, they could perhaps save some lives.

Debbie Abrahams: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should be challenging the big six over their excessive profits. She is also right to point out, in relation to the Government’s responsibilities, what Warm Front did to reduce fuel poverty. What does she think about the Government’s cutting of winter fuel payments and replacing social tariffs with a poorly designed system? We must press the Government about those changes.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend brings to the House the expertise of a public health expert, and she makes an excellent point. How people live, and the homes and communities that they live in, are important to their physical well-being. For example, 80-year-old widows will lose £100 this winter that would have helped to heat their homes. And by the way, the Prime Minister had the brass neck to tell the public to check out free insulation, but he forgot to say that the insulation schemes run by the energy companies exist only because Labour legislated to require them to spend £300 million every year on reducing fuel poverty.

Robert Flello: My right hon. Friend will recall, as will most Members when the Government take us back to the 1980s, that it was Edwina Currie who said that pensioners had to stay in one room with a flask beside them, knitting themselves scarves and hats to keep warm. We are going back to that same territory, are we not?

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that Edwina Currie was in the news again only last week, when she said that she was not aware of anyone who could not afford to eat. People up and down the country are, however, facing the choice between keeping warm and having a hot meal. The sad thing is that many older people often make such sacrifices and keep quiet about them; they
	suffer on their own. In the voluntary sector, we are also seeing cuts to the services that support those people and help them to get access to their rights and to the deals that they deserve. This is a sorry tale of a sorry Government.

Guy Opperman: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the report on fuel poverty by the Office of Fair Trading, which was published this week? She asks what is being done. The report described the stopping of practices by BoilerJuice—something that was set up on her watch—which allowed only one company to be in a position to market its products, namely DCC. Will she “go compare” that?

Caroline Flint: Whatever we do in public policy, the important thing is always to see whether it is hitting the mark and working as best it can. Does that mean that policies always stay the same? No, it does not.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for calling me his right hon. Friend, but I must challenge him and the Secretary of State over Labour’s record on supporting families coping with their energy needs. I challenge the Secretary of State to deny that the Decent Homes programme, which involved the modernisation of 1.5 million homes, reduced energy consumption. I defy him to say that the code for sustainable homes did not improve the energy efficiency of new properties. I defy him to say that Warm Front did not reduce energy bills for more than 2 million households. I also defy him to say that the car scrappage scheme did not remove hundreds of thousands of old cars from Britain’s roads and replace them with more fuel-efficient vehicles with lower emissions. I challenge him to own up to the House today to the fact that the regulations that his Government are introducing, seven months after they were required, arise from the third energy package agreed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Yes, it was Labour that agreed the legal agreement across the European Union to make the gas and electricity markets more competitive, to give new powers to the regulator, to reveal the financial records of the energy giants and to put in place a more competitive market that new suppliers could enter. The role of this Government, 18 months into office, is to delay the process of implementation.
	Perhaps the Secretary of State is not just the Prime Minister’s meerkat; perhaps he is also the Chancellor’s poodle. Following the Osborne doctrine, which states, “We are going to cut our carbon emissions no slower, but no faster, than other countries in Europe”, perhaps he now believes that, as the Chancellor said,
	“a decade of environmental laws and regulations are piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies.”
	Perhaps that is why, this week, the Secretary of State failed to stand up to companies over pricing, why he failed to express the anger that the public feel towards the energy giants, and why he meekly agreed to let the energy giants pledge not to raise their prices over the winter only after they had already increased them.
	People expect, and deserve, a Government with the courage to stand up to powerful vested interests. This Government cannot even stand up to their own Back Benchers. A survey last year showed that, in spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus, one third of Tory MPs are climate change deniers who doubt the existence of climate change and its link to human activity. As
	ever, we are particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for the expertise that she brings to all matters scientific. On Monday, she solved an issue that has evaded scientists for generations when she told Radio 5:
	“You can’t put solar panels on children’s shoes.”
	I am glad that that thorny issue has been resolved once and for all, but this is all part of the background to the comments of the Chancellor at the Tory party conference, when he openly attacked low-carbon businesses to get cheap applause from Tory delegates. The truth is that this Government are not only out of touch but wedded to an out-of-date orthodoxy which, for too long, has allowed the City and companies such as the privatised electricity suppliers to do what they want at the expense of everyone else.

Sammy Wilson: I note what the right hon. Lady has said about her support for the Climate Change Act 2008, but will she spell out for us what the cost of the renewables obligation has been for electricity consumers in the United Kingdom this year?

Caroline Flint: What will be the cost if we rely on fossil fuels for ever more? What difficulties would that create, in terms not only of fuel costs but of security of supply? I refer the hon. Gentleman to a report that I believe came from both Ofgem and the Department of Energy and Climate Change last year, which outlined that something less than 5% of the price of bills was connected to investment in renewables. Of course we have to look for a balance, but I am focusing on something that we should all be concerned about. Even the Government have admitted that people are paying too high a price for their bills because these tariffs are sold in a misleading way so that people do not get a decent deal. On top of that, we have only the six big energy giants in the market, which needs to be broken up and radically reformed. That is something we should focus our attention on, along with help to people and businesses to make their homes and businesses more energy-efficient so they can pull down the costs of energy over time. There is no going back, however, to an old system of energy supply; that will not help anyone.

John Robertson: What does my right hon. Friend say to people in the poorer parts of my constituency where energy efficiency will not work? People can do nothing with the housing they have got, but they have to live somewhere. The thing that makes the biggest impression on them is the price. If they are going to get screwed by the price from the energy companies, they are going to have to work out how they are to live. What do we do with people like that? We can talk all we like about efficiency, but it does nothing for these poor people.

Caroline Flint: We stand up for them. We stand up for them when they are not getting the best deal they can for their energy. We also stand up for them by ensuring that low-income homes are supported through Government schemes, whether that is Warm Front or the winter fuel allowance for older people, but those are being cut by the Government. That is what we do and what we look at. In the long term, we look at how we live our lives and where we live and, with Government leadership and support, we help business to do the right thing to help people not to be behind the curve on energy efficiency
	and lowering bills. We also look at what happens now, which is why our motion demands that energy companies use some of their profits to help people, particularly the most vulnerable in our communities.
	The Government do not understand the reality for families who struggle to pay the bills at the end of the month or the reality for vulnerable people who must make choices about whether to heat their home or have a hot meal. The same applies to families who believe in greening their homes, do their recycling, have low-energy light bulbs and have insulated their homes, yet still find that under the complex, distorted tariffs they pay more for every unit of energy they use—not to mention the businesses trying to keep their head above water because of an austerity programme that is not working for Britain.

Robert Flello: On that specific point, families face a double whammy, as not only have their own gas and electricity bills gone up, but the businesses that supply them with food and other services have seen their bills go up.

Caroline Flint: Yes, and all this takes place in an environment in which unemployment is going up and growth is going down. This toxic cocktail of Government policies is not only not helping us get to a better place for our economy, but is actually making it far worse.

Anne-Marie Morris: Does the right hon. Lady share my particular concern for the south-west, given that if we add energy bills at an average of £1,300 to the water bills at £517, people are looking at spending 8% of their average income on utility bills?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady speaks up for the south-west and I know that she has raised questions a number of times about water in the south-west. Again, however, I would have to say that she should speak to her leader and to the Secretary of State about what they are doing to challenge these utility companies over how they supply, and she should recognise the difficulties faced across our country. She also needs to recognise particular difficulties within regions as well as within the country.

Stephen Barclay: A central theme of the right hon. Lady’s remarks seems to be gas prices and bills for consumers. Will she remind us how much gas bills went up in real terms between 1997 and 2010?

Caroline Flint: I understand that the wholesale price has gone down from its peak in 2008 by two thirds; in fact, wholesale prices have been going down in the last month. That poses the question: why do we hear from the energy companies when they say that prices are going up, but when the prices are going down we do not hear from them so loudly? Ofgem has said it is not good enough that when the energy companies claim that wholesale prices are going up, the price to consumers goes up like a rocket, but when they come down, the price comes down like feathers. The truth is that it is a complex market and it is difficult. We are not an island that can control everything, but we should control the way in which the energy companies are expected to
	satisfy us and the public about how they run their tariffs, and they should open their books to show transparency so we can see at what price they buy and at what price they sell, to ensure that we get a better deal.

Angela Smith: Unemployment is at the highest level for 20 years, we have an austerity programme that makes the eyes water, inflation at over 5% and on top of that we face the biggest squeeze on living standards in a generation. Is it not imperative that the Government do something about rising energy prices, which do more than anything else to harm families’ budgets, making it hard for them to keep up a decent standard of living?

Caroline Flint: I agree with my hon. Friend. Given all the spin before the energy summit on Monday, it was disappointing that all that came out of it was that letters would be written to 8 million households telling them to check, switch, insulate and save. I am sorry, but that is not good enough. It is hard to check, switch, insulate and save when it is so incredibly difficult to navigate a way through the tariff system and people are never quite sure, even if they get what looks like a good deal, whether it is going to be a good deal down the road. That is why some of the tariffs that are fixed for 12 months have been so disappointing; many people have realised that they are not as good as they were claimed to be.

Jonathan Edwards: Before I came to this place, I worked for Citizens Advice, so I know that energy poverty has led to one of the greatest increases in inquiries. At the time, I argued for the introduction of a mandatory social tariff on behalf of those in the fuel poverty group, removing them from the market that was clearly not working. Would the Labour Front-Bench team agree with such a radical proposal?

Caroline Flint: We had something like that, but I am afraid that the present Government have taken it away. If we want to get to the root of the problem, we have to think about radically reforming how the energy market works. We have to create a dynamic and more open energy market that deals with climate change and operates in the interests of the consumer, not the vested interests of the few.
	At the Labour party conference, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North called for reform to the energy market to end the dominance of the big six and get a fairer deal for the people of Britain. While the Government have been failing to act to prevent sky-high energy price rises, Labour has been leading the debate and is coming up with radical ideas to reform our energy market and deliver significant reductions in gas and electricity prices for millions of consumers. Our plans would provide immediate help to millions of families now and reform the energy industry to provide a new bargain in the future.

Laura Sandys: The right hon. Lady is making a critique of the current regulatory regime, which was the Labour Government’s regime. What we are doing is reforming the electricity market and there is also Ofgem’s retail market review. Those are the steps taken forward, and we will ensure that they deliver value for the consumer. The previous Government
	published 32 Green Papers and consultations and passed two pieces of legislation, so there was a lot of inactivity over the past 13 years.

Caroline Flint: I think I have already said that, back in 2007, we embarked on securing Europe-wide support for reform of the energy market. I am afraid to say that the negotiations on which the leader of the Labour party led have yet to be implemented. They are seven months overdue; they could have been implemented in this country seven months ago, but it has not happened yet. We are calling for further radical restructuring: we have argued for the energy giants to put all their power into a pool, but we have not heard that echoed by the Government. We have made many demands for transparent data to go to the regulator, but again we have not heard that echoed by the Government.

Laura Sandys: rose—

Caroline Flint: I will continue to expand on my theme a little, if I may, but I will be happy for the hon. Lady to intervene again if I have time.
	If we want to get to the root of the problem, we must talk about reform, and our plans would provide immediate help for millions of families. First, we must deal with the sheer number and complexity of energy tariffs, which are extremely confusing and unfair. They hit loyal customers and penalise those who use less energy, and they really must be reformed. We propose a simple new tariff structure, which will be clearer and fairer and which will help all energy customers to get a better deal. It would work like a phone bill, with a daily standing charge and a cost per unit for the energy used.
	Simplifying the pricing of energy would make it much easier for people to compare deals, work out which is the cheapest for them, and ditch the ones that are ripping them off. We need to get rid of expensive primary units and unregulated standing charges, so that people are no longer penalised for being low energy users, which is quite ridiculous. Instead of his “Check, switch, insulate” mantra, could the Secretary of State not try “Simple, honest, straightforward”? That might work better for customers.
	What about redress? I understand that only two days ago, on breakfast TV, when asked about our proposal for a thorough investigation of past mis-selling and compensation for customers who have been ripped off, the Secretary of State suggested that that was not worth doing because it would delay other reforms. Labour Members will accept new protection measures as they are introduced, and we agreed that that should happen throughout Europe when we were in office. However—let me challenge the Secretary of State by repeating this—we are saying today that a full investigation into past mis-selling must be initiated, and that those who have been ripped off must be fully compensated.

Christopher Huhne: In fact, what I said was not worth doing was referring the matter to the Competition Commission, because of the delays that it would involve.

Caroline Flint: I am not sure whether that means that the Secretary of State now supports our demand for a full investigation and redress for consumers who have been ripped off.

Christopher Huhne: I announced some weeks ago that we were considering redress for consumers. Moreover, we have said that it should not be just a question of a rap across the knuckles or indeed a fine, but that there should be a possibility of redress for consumers as well.

Caroline Flint: Obviously we will explore that in a little more detail, but I think it is clear that those who have mis-sold a package must pay back to people what they have lost through that, and must pay them compensation. It is clear that the fines are not working, because every time a consumer organisation conducts another survey, it finds more evidence of mis-selling. I think that this is quite straightforward, and I do not see why we need to go on talking about it. Let us just get on with it.

Albert Owen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Energy and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member, should be praised for initiating the current inquiries? Already four of the big six have decided to stop doorstep selling, and we need to push that further. The Secretary of State knows that these companies are on the run; now he must put the boot into the big six, and ensure that our customers receive the compensation that they deserve. We need not measly words, but action.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I pay due respect to all the members of the Select Committee. They have done fantastic work on our behalf, highlighting some of the problems caused by the operation of the energy market and energy companies. It is about time that the Government stood up to the energy giants, because this is not good enough. I do not know how energy chief executives can go on television and brazen it out, talking about what their companies are doing for customers, when 80% of people are not on the best deal for them, and mis-selling appears to have reached the level that is being discussed in the Chamber and beyond. It is a disgrace, and the very least that those companies should do is fess up and pay back.

Ian Mearns: It is not just the mis-selling itself, but the fact that it has taken place within the confines of what is clearly a rigged market, that is such an utter disgrace. It is clear that the levels of profit per customer in all the companies in the market are rising very quickly and will fall very slowly, and that is of concern to every Member in the House.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right. People are not stupid, but sometimes I feel that the leaders in this country treat them as if they were. That certainly seemed to be the case on Monday, after the energy summit. People feel distrust, and they are right to feel distrust because of what has happened to them.
	I am sure that we all have stories of our own experience. For instance, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), tried to work out what was the best tariff for him, and then gave up on it. Yet people are being blamed for sticking to the same supplier because they too have given up, although some of those whom we represent have more stresses to deal with in life than we have. Spending half the day sorting out an energy bill—if they can devote that much time to
	it—is just one item in a long list of things with which they are having to cope, and they are not being helped by the policies of this Government.

Pat Glass: It is all very well for the Prime Minister to tell people that they should insulate their homes. It is true that they should do that, but some of the poorest people in the country live in private rented accommodation. They turn up in my surgery all the time. There are some excellent private landlords, but there are also many who are simply not interested in insulating their houses, and do not care how high their bills are.

Caroline Flint: We have been campaigning for something to be done about that from 2016, but I understand that the Government do not intend to do anything until 2018, and that too is a disgrace. We must also look much more closely at what happens to housing benefit in the private rented sector, and ensure that that sector is not left behind. We should consider incentives, but we should also consider introducing a bit of stick where it is necessary.

Geraint Davies: One in four children in Swansea currently live in absolute poverty, which means that every day a choice must be made between eating and heating. Should the Government not put at the top of their agenda the opportunities at their disposal to target support at those in greatest need, particularly households containing children in poverty?

Caroline Flint: I agree. There are measures that Government can take. However, they can also show leadership and exert moral pressure on the energy companies to be fairer and consider sharing some of their profits with those who are most in need, at the very least.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Secretary of State has focused on the fact that switching suppliers might save people as much as £200. Is that not a bit rich, given that the energy companies’ profit per person is £125? Most people will never get around to switching, and meanwhile the big six are raking it in.

Caroline Flint: If it is true that every customer who followed the Energy Secretary’s advice could save £200, why do the companies not make it easier for customers by simply reducing their prices? The latest report does indeed show that their profit margins are £125 a head, up from £15 a head in June. If that does not set the alarm bells ringing in Government, I do not know what will.
	As Members have pointed out—including, to some extent, Government Members—reforming the way in which energy is priced and sold will only ever work if there is genuine competition in the energy market. There is no such competition at present. The market is dominated by just six firms, which supply more than 99% of electricity and gas.

Damian Hinds: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: No. I will not take any more interventions, because I want to leave time for other Members on both sides of the House to contribute.
	The problem is that when wholesale prices go up, so do people’s bills, but when wholesale prices come down, bills do not. That is because of the lack of transparency in the market. The companies that generate energy sell it to themselves, and then on to customers. If the few big dominant firms were forced to sell the power that they generate to any retailer, companies such as supermarkets and others could come into the market, there would be more competition. and the upward pressure on prices would be eased.
	In the long term, however, the only way in which we will deal with rising energy prices is by investing in new renewable sources of energy. The challenge is clear. A quarter of our generation capacity will close in the next 10 years, and we need to attract some £200 billion of investment. If we do not do that, energy bills may rise further still, by hundreds of pounds a year.
	As a result of the uncertainty this Government have created, the UK is falling behind with investment in new low-carbon generation. Investment that should be coming to the United Kingdom, supporting jobs, growth and industry in this country, is now going overseas. Last year, when we left office, the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in green growth. Today, because of the choices made by the present Government, we have slipped 10 places to 13th, falling behind countries such as Brazil, India and China. That is why the Chancellor was wrong when he said the UK should not try to get ahead of other countries in developing our green industries; we should do that. We should be ambitious for our country; we should be a world leader on the green economy. That is good for consumers because in the long run it will bring down prices. It is good for our environment because it gets our carbon emissions down. It is good for our energy security because it means we are less affected by events overseas. It is good for our economy too, because it creates jobs and supports growth at a time when we need that more than ever.
	I am afraid that we have a Government who are out of touch and unable to stand up to powerful vested interests on energy prices on behalf of the people of this country. They are out of touch when they tell people that they are to blame for rising energy bills. They are out of touch when they cut help for pensioners at a time when prices are rising and a cold winter is on the way. They are also out of touch when they insult people by saying “Check”, “Switch” and “Insulate to save.”
	The public will check; they will check how their family voted at the last election and they will switch to Labour—as Liberal Democrat voters did in their droves in May. They will try to insulate themselves from the hardships this Government are raining down on them, and in a few years they will save themselves and this country from this terrible coalition.
	The public do not need lectures from Government. They want leadership, and today there is a very clear choice before the House: vote to stand up to the energy companies and take action; vote for simpler and fairer tariffs; vote for justice and redress for the victims of mis-selling; vote to open the books and shine a light on how energy is bought and sold; vote to break the stranglehold of the big six and create an open and
	competitive energy market; vote to tell the energy companies to use their profits to cut bills now. I commend the motion to the House.

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) brings a wealth of Government experience to her brief, and I congratulate her on her appointment and on securing today’s debate. She has a particularly difficult Opposition Front-Bench role as her boss, the Leader of the Opposition, was the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. He held that post for almost two years, and presided over the last Government’s energy and climate change policies. It is his legacy that I am having to deal with.
	As we did not hear much from the right hon. Lady about that legacy, I would like to remind her of it. First, we inherited a situation whereby we ranked 25th out of 27 European Union member states on renewable energy. No turf was turned for any new nuclear power stations. There was no progress on that throughout the 13 years the Labour Government were in office.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Huhne: Carbon capture and storage is a crucial technology if we are to ensure that the coal mines and miners in this country have ongoing employment, but in 2007 the Peterhead project was cancelled, despite the competition, with the consequence that we have now further delayed addressing this issue.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Christopher Huhne: There was not a single comprehensive energy saving package throughout the time of the last Labour Government, whereas in our first year in office, we have proposed in the Energy Bill a comprehensive package to make sure that householders can save energy, so that we end the scandal we inherited from the right hon. Lady and her colleagues of householders in our country spending more on their energy every year than people do in Sweden, where temperatures are 7° lower than here. That highlights the waste we inherited.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, he cannot be made to do so. I ask Members to be patient with him.

Christopher Huhne: I will happily give way in a moment, but having listed a few legacy issues that we are attempting to deal with, I should make one final point. The leader of the Labour party held this portfolio for almost two years, but only now that he no longer has any power to do anything does he keep coming up with interesting ideas. He recently came up with the interesting idea—I do not agree with it but it is an interesting proposal—that the energy companies should be broken up and should no longer be vertically integrated. However, I can see no such proposal in the Opposition motion. Why is that? Is the right hon. Lady already resiling from the proposal that her boss made just a few weeks ago?
	Indeed, I read this motion very carefully expecting, as usual, to come across a number of points on which we could disagree, but I and my ministerial team have
	consulted, and we cannot disagree with it. We will not oppose it. I hope that the right hon. Lady asks her boss whether she was right not to propose that key idea he made a few weeks ago.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, sadly, has lost his Front-Bench role dealing with these issues. I, for one, thought he performed his duties rather well.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his civility. However, he is rewriting history yet again. What did he and his party do throughout the previous decade and longer when we were establishing the consensus on the need to build new nuclear? Also, would he care to comment on the fact that when we left office this country was one of the top five most attractive countries in the world for inward investment on renewables?

Christopher Huhne: We do not need to go as far back as that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the coalition reached an agreement which said that, given the overwhelming support for new nuclear from the Opposition and the Conservative party, it has a part to play. I refer him to my recent speech at the Royal Society in which I addressed how we intend to make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes on new nuclear generation that, sadly, so many Energy Secretaries made in the past.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Christopher Huhne: I will make a little progress before giving way again.
	Across the country, rising energy prices are hitting households hard. On top of increasing petrol and food costs, many households are facing an increase of more than £100 in their annual dual fuel bills. For those who are struggling, it can seem as if bills simply keep going up. I am sure that all Members will join me in expressing concern about that, but sympathy from the sidelines is not enough. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to help. That is why we are focusing on the things that will make a difference both this winter and in the long term.
	First and foremost, consumers need to know how they can cut their energy bills right now. We need open and honest information, so people can see the savings they can make by checking their energy deal, switching tariffs or suppliers, and insulating their homes. One of the positive things to come out of Monday’s energy summit was a commitment from the energy companies that, as part of the voluntary agreement, they will notify all their customers when there is a cheaper tariff than that which they are currently paying. That is a step forward. It is not the end of the story, but it is a step forward.

Michael Weir: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the choice of language is important? He says that we can reduce bills by switching and insulating, but is it not the case that, given the massive rise in energy prices, if people switch or insulate they may stop the rise being so big, but bills will keep rising? That is why people are being hit so hard. Wages are not rising, but bills are. Unless we can reduce bills, we will not help the situation.

Christopher Huhne: That is a very good point. It is certainly the case that over the past year there has been a substantial increase in world gas prices because of the high growth in the far east, the demand for gas and the Fukushima nuclear accident. That substantial increase in gas prices has inevitably fed through to bills, but I think that people understand that, by getting a grip and comparing tariffs, they can curb that increase, and sometimes offset it entirely.
	Ofgem is the independent regulator, and I have a lot of respect for the work it does. It has found that people could save £200 by switching, and I should point out that an additional £100 is available for simple energy insulation steps.

Michael Connarty: One of my constituents has taken the trouble to analyse each section of his bill. He found that although the gas price—the actual energy price—had reduced from being 62% of his bill to 42%, his bill had increased. When he interrogated his supplier he found that the profit level it had built in had a 9% increase. In reality, it had taken that money, which was not demanded of it for energy sources, and put it into the profit level. That is why bills are increasing.

Christopher Huhne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why we are happy not to oppose the motion. I agree that there are signs in this market of anti-competitive behaviour and we need to get a grip on that, which is exactly what this Government are doing in supporting what Ofgem—the independent regulator—is doing.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Christopher Huhne: I will make a little progress before I give way.
	Our approach means working together across the consumer groups and the energy industry to get the message out about checking, switching and insulating. Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I brought the energy suppliers, the consumer groups and Ofgem together to do precisely that. In the new year, Citizens Advice will co-ordinate a “Big Energy Week” campaign, and energy suppliers have put together winter help packages for consumers, which I am sure other hon. Members will welcome.

Geraint Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to be a champion of consumer rights. He will be aware that the primary consumer watchdog on energy, Consumer Focus, which has mandatory statutory powers, is being abolished by his Government and those powers are being absorbed by Citizens Advice, which has enough on its plate with changes in legal aid, cuts and all the rest of it. Does he not accept that that change will disempower energy consumers, at least over that period of change, and that the powers of Consumer Focus are set in statute in a stronger way than those of Citizens Advice, which is a charity?

Christopher Huhne: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I care as passionately as he does about consumer rights on this issue. I spent some time on the board of Which?, the consumer association, so I will not be second to anyone on those particular issues. My experience—perhaps his differs—is that many of my
	constituents go first and foremost for advice on these issues to their citizens advice bureau, so that is an appropriate place to situate such advice.
	When the coalition took office, some 400 separate tariffs were available. That is also part of the legacy we inherited from the time when the right hon. Lady’s boss was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. This coalition Government have, in our Energy Bill—now the Energy Act 2011, as it received Royal Assent yesterday—taken powers to force companies to give straightforward information about cheaper tariffs. We are also working with Ofgem to cut the number of tariffs and make it easier to compare them. According to Ofgem, only 15% of households switched gas supplier last year and only 17% switched electricity supplier. Switching should be fast and easy, and we are cutting the time it takes to switch to just three weeks—that is another change that this Government have introduced. In addition, Citizens Advice and Ofgem announced record funding from suppliers for the “Energy Best Deal” campaign, which helps vulnerable consumers to shop around for the best deal.

John Robertson: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I cannot resist, although I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be raising a matter concerning fuel poverty. I wish he would because I will be able to respond.

John Robertson: My speech is full of stuff on fuel poverty, but I wish to pick up on one of the points that the Secretary of State made. He said that Sweden was using less energy than the United Kingdom, but that is wrong. According to the Swedish Government’s own figures, Sweden uses twice as much energy as this country does, and the cost is more. In addition, according to the International Energy Agency, Sweden’s energy use is substantially higher than that of the UK. I do not suppose he meant to mislead the House, but I think he must get his facts right.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman needs to examine the situation for households. It is clearly the case that Sweden has a lot of hydroelectricity and a lot of industries are very dependent on it. My point was about households and the household use of heating, which is key.
	Millions of households could save just by switching tariffs or payment method. From now on, suppliers will write to customers to tell them about these savings—that is another outcome from Monday’s energy summit.

Alex Cunningham: rose—

Ian Lavery: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I am going to make a bit of progress before giving way again. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) has already intervened once, so he will have to wait until I have taken interventions from some of the other hon. Members.
	This winter, energy bills will show customers how to save money, encouraging them to call their supplier and check online for savings. They will also have access to advice.

Caroline Flint: The Secretary of State makes much of the fact that people will be able to save if they switch. What about the people who cannot use direct debit?
	What about the people who have not got access to the internet or those who, even if they did, would find it difficult to navigate their way through?

Christopher Huhne: The sort of people the right hon. Lady is talking about are the sort of people we are particularly targeting with our warm homes discount. I heard some of the interventions from Labour Members with mounting surprise, because one of the things that this Government have done, of which I am very proud, is to concentrate help on those most in need—those most vulnerable to rising fuel prices. Through the warm homes discount we have altered the previously voluntary arrangement. I say to Labour Members that their Government operated a purely voluntary arrangement with the big six, so cosy was the relationship between the big six and the right hon. Lady’s boss. It was a voluntary, grace and favour arrangement, whereby support was provided for the most vulnerable. We did not have any truck with that. We decided that we were going to legislate on this, which is exactly what we did. As a result, we will have a two thirds increase in the support made available for these social discounts compared with what was available under the previous Labour Government. So on the matter of fuel poverty, we have been doing exactly the right thing, which is to concentrate support where it is most needed and to make sure that that support is available.

Sarah Newton: The Secretary of State is making an excellent point about targeting resources where they are necessary. Will he congratulate Cornwall council and other councils that are taking exactly that approach and working in partnership with the voluntary sector to provide free insulation and other ways of helping people in fuel poverty to stay warm this winter?

Christopher Huhne: I certainly will congratulate the hon. Lady’s local council and every council, of all parties, on that work. I hope that we can maintain a cross-party and consensual view on this. Many councils, some Liberal Democrat-led, some Conservative-led and some Labour-led, have been pioneers in this area, and I want to see them do more. Leading on that is really important for our constituents, and it is something to which I pay great tribute.
	People can save money on bills, but they can also save by using less energy in the first place. Far too many UK homes are not properly insulated. Loft and cavity wall insulation can save more than £100—we are talking about very simple changes. The big six energy suppliers, which supply 99% of UK households, all offer free or cut-price insulation, yet many householders still have not taken up the offer. So from December, 4 million of the most vulnerable energy customers will receive letters to tell them they are eligible for free or heavily discounted insulation to their loft or cavity walls. Many of these people will not necessarily save energy because they are currently too cold and keep their bills down. By having that insulation, they will be able to increase their comfort, and that is a very good thing to get through an extremely tough winter. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that one of the scandals in this country, which underpinned the work of the Hills fuel poverty review, is that 25,000 people die each winter because of the cold. We have to deal with that. As has been pointed
	out, it is a multiple of the number of people killed on the roads and it is a scandal that across this House—I am not going to cast further aspersions on the record of the previous Government—we have not tackled this issue with more vigour until now.
	These letters will direct people to a dedicated independent helpline, as part of our programme to ensure an extra 3.5 million homes are properly insulated by the end of 2012. Next year we will also be rolling out the green deal to help even more households save money through energy efficiency.
	We must also make sure that help is getting to those who need it most—the most vulnerable households. As I pointed out, discounts have risen very sharply under the coalition, and the extra support will be available this winter. We are requiring energy companies to provide help to about 2 million low-income households through the warm home discount.
	That is a discount of £120 for 600,000 of the poorest pensioners—substantially more than they have been getting until now. We are spending £110 million on heating and insulation for low-income and vulnerable households through Warm Front.

Caroline Flint: Is it not the case that only about one in 20 pensioners will benefit from the warm homes discount, whereas our social tariffs went to all vulnerable households? In addition, there are cuts of £100 in the winter fuel allowance for those over 80 and cuts for older people of £50. This all adds up when one takes into account the VAT increases and everything else that people have to pay the price for under this Government.

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Lady again makes a point about winter fuel payments which I should have picked her up on previously. She may not be aware of this, as she was not in the Department previously, but we have adopted precisely the policy of the previous Labour Government on winter fuel payments. We have left it completely unchanged. They increased winter fuel payments on a temporary basis and then proposed to bring them down, and we have kept exactly in line with that policy, so I am in no position to accept lectures on this matter from the Opposition as we are implementing the policy that they agreed.
	Of course, cold weather payments will also be paid to households in areas with extended periods of very cold weather. Part of the green deal scheme will be designed specifically to provide affordable warmth to low-income, vulnerable households through heating and insulation measures. Those policies will make a difference this winter, next winter and every winter thereafter. However, we also need to take the right long-term decisions so that energy does not become unaffordable in future. We need to keep the lights on in the cheapest, cleanest way and to make sure that households get the best deal in the long term as well.

John Pugh: The Secretary of State may be aware that north of my constituency a find of 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas has been announced. That will make an enormous difference one way or another if it is genuine. Would he like to comment on that and the difference it might make to prices in future?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Our overall energy policy is designed to be robust in the face of considerable uncertainties in relation
	to technologies and what is likely to happen to the price of particular fuels. If it transpires that the early indications we have received from Cuadrilla about the size of the find under Lancashire are correct, there will clearly be an impact on gas prices within the UK. We have already seen that gas prices in the United States are half of those in the UK and the rest of Europe and are even lower than the prices for gas in the far east. This is a very important development and all our policy framework is designed to make sure that we can provide affordable, clean electricity at the cheapest possible price to British consumers in the long run. If that means cheap gas, then obviously the technological imperative is to go forward with carbon capture and storage so that we can use that gas in an environmentally friendly manner. That is precisely why that is so important.

Luciana Berger: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Christopher Huhne: I must make a bit of progress with my speech; otherwise I fear we will be here all night.
	Over the next 10 years, we need £110 billion of investment in power plants and another £90 billion of investment in energy infrastructure to avoid the risk of black-outs. If we do not invest now to reduce our energy use and our dependence on fossil fuels in the long term, we will have to rely on ever more expensive imports. That will leave us at the mercy of global oil and gas prices and at the mercy of events in very volatile parts of the world. We have only to look at what has been happening in Libya and the rest of the middle east to see that. The impact on energy security and household bills will be worse. This is a very important way of insuring our country against the sort of economic shocks that we can otherwise expect.
	That four-pronged strategy of energy saving, renewables, new nuclear and carbon capture and storage is absolutely essential.

Luciana Berger: rose—

Christopher Huhne: Is the hon. Lady about to ask about carbon capture and storage perhaps?

Luciana Berger: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He said that energy saving was one of those prongs, and on energy saving he said only a moment ago that the Government are introducing the energy company obligation, which will replace Labour’s carbon emissions reduction target and community energy saving programme. That ECO pot is not going to go just to homes in fuel poverty but will be split, with some money going to subsidise able-to-pay households. Will he tell us how much there will be in that ECO pot?

Christopher Huhne: We will be bringing forward the consultation document on the green deal and the ECO subsidy shortly, and all those issues will be addressed. Clearly, we have to make sure that we are getting value for money on both the carbon reduction side and in reducing fuel poverty because they are both very important.
	I want to make some remarks on carbon capture and storage, which was raised in Prime Minister’s questions. Despite the fact that all the parties have worked extremely
	hard on the first carbon capture and storage demonstration project at Longannet, we have not been able to reach a satisfactory deal, as the Prime Minister pointed out. We will not, therefore, be proceeding with the project. That decision is purely about the viability of that particular project and is not a reflection on our commitment to the CCS programme; indeed, hon. Members will have heard me commit us to that very clearly a moment ago.
	The long-term need for CCS remains as strong as ever. We will continue working across Government to start a more streamlined selection process as soon as possible and £1 billion will be available, as it was allocated in the comprehensive spending review, for that new process. Over the coming weeks, we will ensure that the lessons from that first process are fully learned and we now know that commercial-scale CCS projects are technically viable and are likely to be financially achievable. We also know more about the best way to procure these first-of-a-kind projects. Our findings will be published and made freely available on the Department of Energy and Climate Change website to help to speed up deployment of CCS both here and abroad. We will study those lessons closely as we develop the forthcoming CCS road map setting out our vision for CCS deployment.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Secretary of State for referring to the situation with carbon capture and storage projects around the country. Will he explain to the House how the Government will look to use the great deal of work and research that have been done at the plant in Scotland to make sure that the endeavours, hard work and ingenuity there are not lost but are supported?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful for that question. It is absolutely right; we have learned an enormous amount from that. A lot of work has gone into the negotiations and a lot of good engineering work has been done with the front-end engineering and design studies. They will all be published, if they have not been already, and will be made available to everyone. We are absolutely confident, as a result of this process, that we are able to go ahead with the CCS project within that budget. Unfortunately, at Longannet the difficulties were specific to that project, including the length of the pipeline between Longannet and the reservoirs, as well as other issues concerning the rest of the plant such as its upgrading to comply with the large combustion plant directive. As a result of the knowledge that we have acquired in that negotiation and as a result of those feed studies, we are confident that we will be able to take a project forward.

Michael Weir: Earlier in his speech, the Secretary of State referred to the disgraceful decision of the previous Government to abandon the gas CCS project at Peterhead, but are not this Government doing exactly the same with Longannet now? It was chosen as the only viable CCS plant in the competition, as no one else came forward. By abandoning it now, is he not putting back CCS development and ensuring that its much talked about exportable technology will not be developed in this country?

Christopher Huhne: No, I disagree with that. I think that we have a very good track record at a number of our leading universities, with Edinburgh being first and foremost amongst them, of work on carbon capture and storage. One lesson that we have learned from the
	negotiations is that we can build a commercial-scale CCS plant with £1 billion. Indeed, we have had a very clear indication of interest back at Peterhead from Scottish and Southern that it would be prepared to do that with consortium partners. That is clearly going to be an offer that other contestants will have to beat, so for all the reasons that I have given and that I have explained at considerable length, we are determined that we should be successful with CCS technology. It is disappointing to me personally and to many others that we were not able to proceed at Longannet because of the specific problems there, but that certainly does not mean that we are shelving CCS.

Andrew George: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is giving the House the benefit of time and his advice on the issue. Nevertheless, there will be concern about the impact that that outcome might have on the timescale for the delivery of an effective CCS programme. To be clear, is he saying that the difficulties at Longannet were primarily financial or technical? Does that raise a question about the viability of the technology, or can he reassure the House in that regard?

Christopher Huhne: I can reassure the House that on the basis of the feed studies, that does not raise questions about the generic technology. What arose were questions related to the specific costs of employing the technology at Longannet, given how far away it is from the reservoirs and so forth. Those were the issues. We are confident that we can procure a CCS commercial scale plant within that £1 billion. That is what we intend to do.

Ian Lavery: A billion pounds was allocated to the CCS project at Longannet. I am amazed by what was said at Prime Minister’s Question Time and by what the Secretary of State has just said. That it is not going to happen. Projects 2 to 4 were already in the pipeline—excuse the pun—and I believe there are a number of interested parties. Will the £1 billion allocated for Longannet be available for one of those projects or will it be available across the board? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be committed to CCS with coal, or could it be gas?

Christopher Huhne: Let me say clearly that one of the things we will do is attempt to align our deadlines on this with the European Commission’s new entrant reserve competition. One of the conditions of that competition is that the CCS plants have to be up and running and ready by 2016. That is in answer to the earlier question about the deadline. We do not foresee a slippage in deadlines.
	There is money available from the European budget to support those projects. Money will be available. That £1 billion from the UK Treasury is secure. In addition, there may be help for running costs from the electricity market reform contracts for difference. With all those things we ought to be able to make sure that we get commercial-scale carbon capture and storage up and running. The projects that have been proposed to the Commission are a mixture of coal and gas. We want to make sure that we are doing both.
	I hope the House will come away knowing that we are fully committed to the programme and the technology. What happened at Longannet is a disappointment. We
	would have liked it to go ahead if we could have done it within the affordability envelope that we had and if we had not hit those specific project problems there, but we will now go ahead elsewhere and we are confident that we will be able to get the commercial-scale CCS.
	Our proposals to reform the electricity market—I have already mentioned contracts for difference—will deliver the best deal for Britain and for consumers because they will keep prices down and ensure that consumers are protected. We are working on giving Ofgem powers to force companies to give money back to consumers if the companies break the rules. That is the point about redress that the right hon. Lady mentioned.

Caroline Flint: Will that include customers who have already been victims of mis-selling or is the policy only for those who might be misled in the future?

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Lady knows that unfortunately it is a strong principle right across the House, and I am sure she will agree, that we should not have retrospective legislation. Legislation is for matters going forward. I agree that it would have been good if we had had legislation allowing for redress some years ago, but we have been in government only since the last election. For 13 years that was not done by the Labour Government.

Karl Turner: Did the Secretary of State raise the issue of mis-selling at the energy summit? It seems to me that he probably was not there long enough to do so.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that. Mis-selling is clear. Ofgem had already tackled that with substantial fines and with the public reputational risk. As a result of the mis-selling that some of the companies were discovered to have engaged in, a number of them have said that they will not go down the doorstep route. There is therefore clear action on that already, but I agree that what should happen is not just a question of fines or making sure that the companies get the rap—[Interruption.] I have raised the matter with the companies and with Ofgem. It is important to make sure that there is also the possibility for Ofgem to provide redress to consumers who have lost out. That is an important principle. All of us on the Government Benches will want companies to rise to their responsibilities.
	We are also working to open up the energy market to smaller companies. In the past, regulation stopped independent suppliers serving more than 50,000 customers. We have already raised the ceiling to 250,000 customers, and we are working with small suppliers to make it easier for them to comply with regulation.
	Global energy prices are beyond our control, but we are doing everything we can to help households with their energy bills this winter. On tariffs, bills and insulation, we are making it easier for people to save money and save energy. Together with consumer groups and industry, we are working to improve the offer to consumers. We are taking action to help the most vulnerable households to cope with rising bills and inefficient properties. From the green deal to the reform of the electricity market, we are making the right long-term decisions to ensure warm homes and affordable, secure energy for the future.

Caroline Flint: At Prime Minister’s Question Time today the Prime Minister suggested that he supported the opening up of the energy market to a pool. Does that mean that the Government agree with the Labour Front-Bench team that the pool should be opened up in such a way that the big six should put all their energy into a pool for everybody to compete for?

Christopher Huhne: I certainly agree. We have been talking to Ofgem about this and we have been talking with the big six. I found it a very interesting proposal from Scottish and Southern that it was prepared to trade a substantial amount of its electricity in the wholesale market. Scottish and Southern said 100%—of course, that is 100% of the spot market; it does not mean that Scottish and Southern is prepared to trade 100% of its electricity. The devil is in the detail. We have to make sure that the forward market is also liquid.
	I am absolutely committed. I am not in favour of the Opposition’s proposal that we should refer these matters to the Competition Commission, because for two to five years that would put a freeze on the whole market. None of the big six would need to do anything at all. They would be able to put their prices up with impunity, they would be able to cut their investment, they would be able to pay more dividends to shareholders, and we would have an awful long time to wait before we had any real reform. The reality is that we think that we understand enough about what is not right in the market, at the retail end and the wholesale end, and are working very hard with Ofgem to ensure that it is put right, which is exactly what we will do.

Alan Whitehead: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Christopher Huhne: I am afraid that I have finished my speech, as delighted as I would have been to give way to my neighbour from Southampton.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must now announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Adjournment of the House. The Ayes were 306 and the Noes were 95, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
	Before calling the next speaker, I inform Members that there is a 12-minute limit on speeches.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I had intended to be non-partisan and speak in favour of consensus, but having listened to his opening remarks, I will find it difficult to be disciplined and keep to that line, because he rewrote the recent history of energy. I certainly take no lectures from him on nuclear power and many other things. I have stood on the Government side of the House and argued in favour of nuclear power, the base load, renewables and energy efficiency, and I see no contradiction between them. For him to try to knock the policy of the Labour party when it was in government is nothing short of cheek.
	I welcome the debate because energy prices are the big issue for constituents and consumers across the country. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) chose this topic for her first outing as shadow Secretary of State. She gave an excellent overview of what has happened in recent weeks.
	I did not want to be partisan, because the issue is too important for that, but when people criticise what happened in the past 13 years, I must remind them that, since 2009, there has been a trend of high gas and electricity price rises. The rise in 2008-09 was seen as a one-off resulting from a peak oil situation. In 2009-10 prices came down considerably. In 2009, gas prices rose by 51% in a single year and electricity prices also rose considerably, but the following year, when the wholesale price was half what it had been at its peak, prices came down by only 6% and 9% respectively. We have seen since then a trend of double-digit rises that are hurting every household in the country. That is why the House is right to debate the matter and look for ways to help.
	I am very disappointed with the summit. I tabled a question last Friday, without knowing that there was to be a summit, asking when the Secretary of State last met the big six energy companies. He has partly answered that question, but I am disappointed that he did not ask them whether they would freeze their prices in future and what they would do to bring them down. The duty of the Secretary of State is to put the consumer’s view to those companies.
	Our constituents are right to be annoyed by the fact that those companies’ profits have increased in the past few months from £15 to £125 for each household. I want to make it clear that I am not against energy companies making profits or having healthy balance sheets, because we need them to reinvest in our infrastructure as we move to a low-carbon economy, but I find it very upsetting that they claim that the wholesale price is high and put their prices up, but when the wholesale price comes down, the retail price does not follow suit. Our constituents are paying for that very dearly. As my right hon. friend said, that is the rocket-and-feathers concept—prices rocket after the wholesale price increases, but they come down very slowly.

Jonathan Edwards: As a proud Welshman, like myself, is the hon. Gentleman not perplexed that Wales, despite being a net exporter of electricity—we export twice what we consume—has a level of household energy poverty at 30%?

Albert Owen: I am a fellow Welshman, but my energy policy is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. Wales is a net exporter of energy because Wylfa nuclear power station, which is in my constituency, generates 30% of Wales’s energy needs. If that was to go, we would be in a difficult situation. However, he is right to point out that some regions of the United Kingdom that generate energy pay more in the retail price for their energy. The energy companies will tell us—I have raised this as a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee—that that is because of transmission, but those areas, which are often on the periphery of the UK, generate electricity and send it to the national grid, but the consumers in those areas pay more for it. That is totally wrong and something we all need to work together to eliminate in future.
	I wish to concentrate on two issues. The first is the reform of the regulator. I would like the regulator to have more teeth. That is not just my view. I can remember the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, saying that the regulator needs to get to grips with the energy companies and ensure that they deal with price rises. I agreed with him then, and I agree with that statement now. That is also why I am disappointed that there was a high-profile energy summit in No. 10 that resulted in these very tame reforms, if indeed they are to come about.
	Ofgem has already suggested that we introduce greater accountability, greater transparency and simpler tariffs, and the Secretary of State was wrong about the time scale, because I believe that in the past year the number of tariffs has gone up considerably from 180 to some 400. I am not making a political point, because I know that many people, such as the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) of whom I am very fond, have phoned up energy company call centres and tried to switch tariffs but found it extremely difficult to do so. They have spoken to people at call centres who, despite representing and working for the companies, do not themselves know the tariffs, so the system really needs to be simplified to ensure that people understand them and can make a choice.
	Even if everyone were to switch to a cheaper tariff tomorrow, they would still in a year or two’s time be paying more for their energy, so switching is a peripheral issue. We want the energy companies to divvy out some of their profits to help customers directly or to build infrastructure for the future—[ Interruption. ] Somebody shouts, “They are,” but they are not using their profits to a considerable degree.

Therese Coffey: rose —

Albert Owen: The hon. Lady is trying to intervene. Would she like to intervene on that point?

Therese Coffey: Yes, I would. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a little sore because his island is not going to get a new nuclear power station.

Albert Owen: It is.

Therese Coffey: Well, I apologise, but who does the hon. Gentleman think is going to pay for it? It will be the energy companies. They are paying towards the construction of new nuclear power stations.

Albert Owen: I am sorry if the hon. Lady was not listening, but I believe that we will have a new nuclear power station; the consortium, Horizon, is working towards that. Issues in Germany might affect its balance sheet, but it is committed, as the Labour Government were, to the project. Work is being carried out, and I support the site that has been allocated.
	When huge profits are made, the customer should not be punished, as they have been, with high rises in their gas and electricity bills. If the hon. Lady thinks the opposite, she is in a minority in the House, because we have seen excessive profits.

Therese Coffey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: No, I am not going to give way again. I was talking about excessive profits, but I am going to develop an argument about the off-grid, which nobody has touched on so far.
	When we talk about energy prices, and about double-digit rises for people with the big six energy companies and for the 99% of retailers who are on-grid, we should also consider those who are off-grid. They are not a small minority, because a considerable number of households are not connected to the grid and have experienced—I have seen evidence from constituents—increases of about 33% in the price of liquefied petroleum gas. The cost of oil has also gone up considerably, so I welcome the fact that the Office of Fair Trading is looking into the matter, but it will not be enough just to refer it to the Competition Commission; there needs to be direct action.
	I should like a windfall tax. I am not afraid to use that phrase, and neither is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his Budget introduced a fuel duty—a windfall tax—to help people who were suffering then. The Government should do exactly the same for domestic energy users and households. The excess profits of energy companies should be used to help build an infrastructure, for example by extending gas mains, so that people off-grid have the opportunity—the choice—to go on to mains-supplied gas and obtain the same prices as those who are on-grid.
	Indeed, we should go further. I would link off-grid issues to reform of the regulator, because the regulator should have responsibility for those who are off-grid as well as for those who are on-grid. The priority of the regulator, in its terms of reference, is to protect the consumer, yet those who are off-grid receive less protection, so I am asking for the equalisation of protection.
	The Secretary of State will remember that I asked him about that when he appeared before the Energy and Climate Change Committee, and I asked the head of Ofgem, too. The head of Ofgem said, “That’s a matter for the Government, and the Secretary of State said, “It’s a matter for the regulator.” Well, I should like to invite both of them for afternoon tea and to sit them down in a room, because people off-grid are losing out considerably while the Secretary of State and the head of Ofgem have different opinions of their remit.
	The solution is simple and it could be implemented very quickly. The Government could give powers to the regulator, and the people off-grid could have protection equal to that for those who are on-grid. The 33% increase that I heard about from a constituent happened in summertime—in August—and it is not sustainable in the rural areas that are not isolated and that contain decent-sized hamlets, small villages and sometimes even small towns.
	We need to be radical in our reform. Of course I agree with the Secretary of State and the regulator when they talk about simplifying bills and about greater transparency by the energy companies, but we have to go a step further and give the regulator real teeth so that it can deal with these situations. That is important to every Member of this House and every constituent we represent. We should never forget that those who are off-grid are paying considerably more than those who are with the big six.
	I support many of the measures that are being proposed by the Government for electricity market reform, but they are all about the medium and the long term and, in
	the short term, people are being really hurt by their bills when they receive them. We, as the House of Commons, the Government and the regulator need to be working together for the short term. I would like to believe that the measures that came out of the summit will make a huge difference to our constituents, but that will not happen in the short term. The House of Commons—I very much welcome this debate—must fix its mind on the short term to help each and every household in the United Kingdom with their energy bills in future. Yes, there will be peaks and troughs with the prices of fuels and external issues that affect the price of energy—we all understand that—but we need to have a fair system so that when prices do come down the regulator can look at the books and say, “Yes, prices for consumers should come down by X amount as well.” Ofgem tried to do this and produced a report, but the energy companies argued with that process.
	This is not anti-business or anti the big six; it is pro-consumer and pro our constituents. We all have a duty to stand up and protect their interests. The regulator needs to be beefed up, it needs to have more teeth, and it needs to be more proactive—but so do the Government. It is important to have this debate not to score political points but to put the welfare of our constituents first. They will be anxious this winter given their experience of such cold weather in the past year, and they want certainty that the House of Commons is on their side.

Guy Opperman: I genuinely believe that this winter there will be choices between heating and eating for individual families up and down the country. The fuel poverty rate in the north-east is approximately 24%; we have the second highest rate in the country. Clearly, that applies in relation to the big six, but I particularly want to speak about it in relation to heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). Over the past year, he and I have debated, very much with common cause, the issues of fuel poverty and heating oil, and I am delighted to follow his eloquent and well-made speech.
	My constituency is the second biggest constituency in the country, at 1,150 square miles, and it does not just face problems of rural fuel poverty. The town of West Wylam, which is a suburban part of Prudhoe, is in an area that has fundamental problems of fuel poverty, and it has perfectly normal residential housing: this is not just about a farm way out west. It is not simply a problem for rural dwellings. One and a half million dwellings are dependent on heating oil. On top of that, significant amounts of LPG are used. We are talking not about a small number of people but a very significant number who are greatly affected by this, which is an important problem throughout the north-east.
	I will focus on the role of the Office of Fair Trading, which I believe has done good work. Its report of September this year on Boilerjuice was a success. The report published only yesterday on off-grid energy, about which I met the OFT at approximately 12 o’clock today, is well worth reading. It is a doughty read at 352 pages, and it would be a lie if I said that I had read every single page, but I am working my way through, and none of my copy will go for fuel at the end of the day.
	The OFT’s investigation into off-grid energy is a market study. Those who analyse what the OFT does need to understand that a market study does not necessarily lead to a formal investigation. As a first point I invite the ministerial team to consider that, although clearly it is not fundamentally within their remit.

Karl Turner: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. I wonder whether he will support the Opposition motion?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear what the ministerial team said earlier, which addressed that exact point.
	The OFT report is a market study, but I seek a formal investigation where there is a reasonable suspicion that the law has been breached in relation to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. I suggest that that applies to pricing practices, particularly when there is a varying price after a customer has placed an order. In my constituency, there is ample evidence that that has happened.

Sarah Newton: I apologise that I was not here for the first part of my hon. Friend’s speech, but an urgent matter called me out of the Chamber. The experience that he so vividly describes in his constituency is echoed in Cornwall and across the south-west. I, too, welcome yesterday’s OFT report. It says specifically that there is an opportunity for us to go back to the OFT and make the case for a referral to the Competition Commission to look further at the issue of pricing, which he has raised. Will he join me in suggesting that Members whose constituents are affected by this should join together to make representations to the OFT for such a referral?

Guy Opperman: I totally endorse that point, particularly in relation to pricing practices and the considerably enhanced prices charged by many heating oil suppliers. I have done quite a lot of research into this matter. In Hexham constituency the price of oil rose from 41p to 71p per litre between September and December last year. In that time, the wholesale price of oil went up only by about 10%.
	In my constituency there are roughly 16 to 18 heating oil providers. However, 11 or 12 of those are controlled by one company. DCC Energy, an Irish-based company, has bought up many of the individual suppliers throughout the country. It operates heavily in west Wales and has been prosecuted there in relation to a trading standards case. It also operates to a considerable extent in Scotland. In Northumberland and throughout the north-east it has a substantial presence. I accept that there is competition in the sense that there are about five genuinely independent companies providing heating oil. However, the other dozen or so are providing heating oil from one global source. There is nothing wrong with that, but when one adds up the figures, it means that one company has 69% of the providers and the multitude of other companies represent 31% of the providers. That should be investigated by the OFT, and it should result in a competition inquiry. If that case does not give the suspicion of price fixing, I do not know what does.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. Across the country as a whole, a little under 30% of those who depend on oil for central heating are in fuel poverty, and they are primarily in rural areas.
	With regard to the OFT’s report published yesterday, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it found that the terms of contracts may not be entirely consistent with existing consumer protection? The OFT states that it will examine the
	“clarity and fairness of termination rights”
	and engage with suppliers to discuss how to proceed. Does he think that regulation is required, or should the OFT continue to pursue some sort of voluntary agreement ?

Guy Opperman: With respect, I would say that the answer is somewhere in between. There cannot be regulation without submissions being made and investigations taking place. It is incumbent upon us not just to get upset about how our constituents are being affected by heating oil prices but to make representations to organisations such as the OFT. We must also invite the Energy and Climate Change Committee to investigate off-grid energy, which I very much hope it will do.

Albert Owen: I am pleased to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that we are going to have a further inquiry into the retail market, in which we will examine off-grid energy.

Guy Opperman: I am most grateful, and I hope that as part of that inquiry the Committee will examine the weighty report that the OFT has provided, as well as specific submissions from individuals and organisations that, like the previous three speakers, can give specific examples of price fixing or the appearance of price fixing. That is in the context of DCC, the company that I am particularly concerned about and have to deal with, recording operating profits of approximately 19.9% on an ongoing basis. I find that figure hard to square with the one given by the managing director, who when questioned in The Sunday Times said that the operating profit was only 2%—but I have taken my figure from the published accounts.
	In Hexham five independents operate—WCF, Par Petroleum, Wallace Oils, GB Fuels Ltd and Rix Petroleum. I urge individual Members to draw to their constituents’ attention by every possible means, as I do for each and every constituent who is faced by heating oil problems, which independents operate in the constituency, so that they are in a better position to get a fair price.
	I want to trumpet the great success of the way in which certain communities, such as Tarset, Allendale and Humshaugh, have come together and produced their own price comparison sites. For example, there is Humshaugh village shop, which is run as a co-operative. It was set up by the local community and is financed and run by the 60 people of Humshaugh. Every Monday they publish the prices available from all the genuinely independent local heating oil suppliers. Individuals can either go to the shop’s website or—this addresses the point that was raised about people who do not have internet access—see the prices in the village shop throughout the week. Everybody in the village can then assess who is providing oil locally. Such ideas need to be taken forward.
	I welcome the fact that the OFT report indicates that there are problems. However, I would ask the OFT to go further, not least because the report shows that when a company is one of a multitude owned by a larger
	company, it is obliged to give people who telephone it specific information about who its ultimate owner is. That needs to be monitored, because it is not necessarily taking place. My researcher phoned one of those only yesterday and was not given that information, as should have happened according to the OFT report. I urge the various Committees involved to examine that point.
	There is also tremendous difficulty for those who wish to compare prices themselves, because heating companies have no obligation to tell people the price that they are offering. Unless people ask to buy, they are not necessarily given the price. With respect, the Government can do something about that, and I invite them to sit down with individual suppliers, particularly the larger suppliers, and make that point very clear to them. If people ring up and ask for a price, they should be told it rather than the company withholding it.

Pat Glass: I am very grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way, as we have very similar constituencies and face similar issues. Is it not also true that the price quoted when someone rings up is not necessarily the price that they are charged when the oil is delivered two weeks later? Last winter, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the cost of heating oil almost doubled in the space of a few weeks. Someone could order heating oil and be quoted 40p a litre, yet get a bill for 71p a litre two weeks later.

Guy Opperman: The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) is not the only one who has been carrying out research on websites. Let me cite the interesting efforts to prove the hon. Lady’s exact point undertaken by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who ordered more than 2,000 litres of heating oil at a price of 40p a litre—again, from DCC—and received only some of the delivery, at the outset, at that price. Later that December, when the remainder was delivered, the price was 65p per litre—an increase of 25p per litre. I applaud his efforts in this House to publicise that, and previous efforts to deal with the problem, as well as the work of The Sunday Times.
	I conclude by saying that I endorse much of the motion.

Sarah Newton: One of the next steps identified by the OFT was for the Government to take, because it acknowledged that people who use heating oil or LPG—or microgeneration, which the report also covers—cannot get dual fuel deals because they are off the grid, and furthermore, they are not eligible for the excellent new £125 warm home discount. This group of people, even if they are in absolute fuel poverty, cannot access some of the very good measures that the Government are introducing. May we ask the Government to consider that specific group of people, and see what could be done to help them?

Guy Opperman: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I endorse her point.
	It is incumbent on us all to go back to our constituencies—not, as was once said, to prepare for government, but to prepare our constituents for the winter.

John Healey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who pointed out some important flaws in a market that should be fully competitive but at present does not best serve consumers.
	People will be pleased to hear the Secretary of State backing the Labour motion but greatly disappointed that he has little to say that will give them any comfort or relief from the high and rising pressure of energy bills.
	I want to talk about and draw some conclusions from the experience of a constituent who came to see me: Mr Terry Tomes of Denman road in Wath upon Dearne. Mr Tomes is on disability living allowance. He had a prepayment meter to try to control the costs of his energy bills, but he found himself with a debt to npower for gas and electricity of nearly £100. He was in such desperation about that that despite it being mid-winter, he had stopped using the gas entirely. I draw two conclusions from Mr Tomes’s experience: first, this is a system that requires much clearer and fairer pricing and regulation for consumers; and, secondly, the regulator, the energy companies and, above all, the Government are failing consumers across the country.
	They are failing consumers in three ways. First, they are out of touch. People simply cannot believe their ears when they hear the Secretary of State say in answer to the question of high energy prices that consumers are to blame for not shopping around. If people are not online, if they are on prepayment meters, if they do not have full bank accounts, and if they are unfortunate enough to call, according to the recent Which? survey, the one in three energy company advisers who do not give accurate information about their charges, they are simply not able to shop around as the Secretary of State suggests. Even the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) is not able to do so, as in June he told the Energy and Climate Change Committee:
	“I went on line to compare my tariffs and I was so confused by the options that I decided to stick where I was”.
	The Government are out of touch—that is the first way in which they are failing consumers.

Ian Lavery: To put a bit of humility into the debate and to cut across party politics, the fact of the matter is that fuel poverty is on the increase. Last year, 36,700 pensioners died because of cold-related problems. That is 13 per hour. Does not that fly in the face of the austerity measures? Older people cannot access the right tariffs and they cannot pay their bills. How are they expected to pay their bills? How are they expected to look at different tariffs and access all the information that Government Members have talked about? Is it not right that we focus on those people as a matter of urgency to try to reduce the number of elderly pensioners who die because of fuel poverty?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that, for many, high energy prices mean a choice between eating and heating, and, in some cases, a choice between life and death, particularly in a harsh winter.
	The second way in which the Government are failing is that they are scrapping some of the important Labour schemes to make homes warmer and bills lower, particularly
	the Warm Front scheme. You will know as well as I do from your experience in the Treasury, Madam Deputy Speaker, that over a decade, the Warm Front scheme helped more than 2 million households with their bills and insulation—it helped to make their homes greener, warmer and cheaper to run. This year and next year, that scheme will have a third of the budget that it had under the previous Labour Government. From 2013, it will be scrapped altogether.
	In my constituency of Wentworth and Dearne, more than 3,000 households have benefited from that scheme in recent years, including pensioners, disabled people and young working families. One of my most recent visits was to Nicola Savage and her partner, Dan, who have two young kids. They had problems heating their home in Swinton, but the Warm Front scheme helped to replace an old back boiler with a new condensing unit. As Nicola told me at the time, “This makes a huge difference to us. When you switch it on, the house gets warm quickly and it stays warm.”

Andrew George: I believe that the previous Government were well intentioned with regard to the Warm Front scheme, but when I visited my constituents who benefited from it—there is no question that they benefited—I found that most of them paid twice as much as they should have done. I do not know who pocketed the benefit of that system, but my constituents could have paid half the price to a local supplier. The scheme was certainly not fit for purpose.

John Healey: I do not know whether there is anything peculiar about the contractors and suppliers in St Ives, but that is not the general experience or track record of the scheme throughout the country, and it is not the experience of most hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Sarah Newton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I will not give way for the moment.
	The third way in which the Government are failing is that they are letting consumers down by allowing the huge hike in energy costs and bills, which are up 20% in the past year, as we have heard. In six months, there has been an increase of £175. The Secretary of State, who knows the cost of speeding, is not in the Chamber at the moment, but for his benefit, £175 is the price of about three speeding tickets. Every time a family in this country switches on the heating or the lights, the Government are letting them down—and those with the lowest incomes and the poorest households are being let down the most.
	Mr Tomes, who could afford £10 a week on his gas, found that he was paying £3 a week just for the gas debt charge, which was taken directly through the meter. The average cost for using the gas each week was £2.30, but the standing charge was £3.31. In other words, he was paying more for his standing charge than for the gas that he used. Why is the system penalising the poorest and benefiting the better-off? Why is it failing those whose consumer power is weakest while reinforcing the market position and choices of those who have money and confidence and can get online? In particular, why is it penalising low users of energy while rewarding higher users? Why are low users, such as Mr Tomes, paying more and losing out more?
	The answer is that all the major energy companies have a two-charge system. They justify it by saying that one charge covers the fixed costs of supply while the other covers the variable costs. That means that every major energy company either has a standing charge plus a unit rate or a higher-tier tariff up to a certain threshold and then a lower-tier second tariff beyond that. As a result, the less energy used, the greater the part of the bill that goes to the standing charge, fixed part or higher-tariff component of the costs, which means that low-use households pay more for each unit of energy that they use. Which? has calculated that low-use households pay 23% more for their gas and 15% more for their electricity, and of course low-use households generally tend to be low-income households as well. The system is therefore socially and environmentally regressive. Its reform is well overdue, and it is time for the Government and the regulator to act.
	The action needed is clear: we should require energy suppliers to recover a far greater proportion of their costs from the unit rate of energy. To make energy bills clearer and fairer, I propose to the Minister a five-point plan—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] They are in vogue at the moment. First, we should abolish variable tariffs for the same energy supply. Secondly, we should require all tariffs to have the same format—a daily standing charge plus a clear cost per unit, including all the discounts. Thirdly, we should restrict standing charges only to cover the costs of the gas and electricity network. Fourthly, we should cover all other costs, including the costs of the Government’s climate change or social policies, through the variable charge, not on a per-customer basis, as is currently the case. Fifthly, to make these changes, we should use Ofgem’s current powers to regulate standing charges, under licensed conditions, plus the energy company obligation.
	Those changes would make the system clearer, making it easier for people to compare suppliers’ prices at a glance, and also fairer, so that low-income, low-use households would not have to pay significantly higher prices for the energy that they need. Those changes would be right in practice and right in principle, because climate change and social equity policies are best and most effective when they are more specific and selective in their application rather than having a general application. The costs of climate change should bite more strongly on heavy users, while the cost of supporting poor households should be borne more heavily by higher-using households that earn higher incomes.
	Ultimately, people do not have the choice not to consume energy. As a service in a full-scale market, energy is a special case. That places a special responsibility on the Government to do more to protect consumers, who must have the energy that we all depend on.

James Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who made a powerful case on behalf of his constituents and made some valuable points.
	This is an important debate, because as I know from talking to my constituents in the west midlands, people are genuinely concerned about rising utility bills. As other hon. Members have pointed out, including the Secretary of State, fuel poverty urgently needs to be
	addressed. The west midlands as a region has the greatest proportion of people in fuel poverty in England, at 22.5% of the population or some 500,000 people. Around 20% of my constituents—7,500 people—could be defined as being in fuel poverty. This issue therefore needs to be tackled urgently. It has been around for a while: it has not suddenly emerged in the last 18 months, although I accept that genuine spikes in fuel prices have made the situation more difficult.
	The Government need to respond—and they are responding—with a mix of policies. Both short-term and long-term policies need to be deployed to tackle the entrenched problem of fuel poverty and the situation that we face. However, there is no silver bullet, as it were, that could be fired to solve some of the difficult problems that we face from rising fuel prices. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have made some valid points; I am bucking the fashion by not having a five-point plan—because a number of the issues are interlinked. We live in a society where our houses lose energy very rapidly—something about our housing stock is weak in that regard—which is why I am supportive of the Government’s initiatives in the green deal, which I believe offers a comprehensive solution to improving energy efficiency. The green deal will also have the side benefit of potentially providing important jobs in the area of the black country that I represent. I know, having talked to many local organisations and people in the Rowley Regis area, that there is particular enthusiasm for the green deal. We need to tackle energy loss in our housing stock.
	I also welcome other initiatives that came out of the summit that was held earlier in the week. The big six energy companies have a responsibility to communicate information to their customers in a much more targeted way, so I welcome the announcement that they are to write to the 4 million most vulnerable energy consumers about the opportunities that are available for home insulation. That strikes me as a fundamental responsibility, and the big six need to concentrate on the way in which they communicate basic information to some of the most vulnerable in our communities.
	Just as we need to tackle the problem of energy loss in our housing stock, we also need to focus on unnecessary energy use. This is not about going around lecturing people on how they should heat their homes, but I know that the Government are committed to introducing smart meters, which will make a fundamental difference. This is a long-term project, but, as I have said, we need short-term and long-term measures to address these questions. Smart meters will introduce a major change in the way in which people consume energy, and they will certainly help them to have a clearer idea of their family or individual energy use.
	The Secretary of State and others have also raised the broader strategic point that we face major issues of energy security in Britain today. The fact has been well documented that Britain is very vulnerable to energy price shocks, and our dependency on imported gas and oil has given rise to energy security issues. This is a macro question, and it is imperative that we diversify our energy sources. Hon. Members have talked about the use of nuclear power, as well as other forms of low-carbon energy and renewables, over the next 10 to 20 years. This is critical; we are not going to solve the problems affecting our most vulnerable residents and
	consumers unless we are clear about dealing with the diversity of our energy supply and the problems of energy security. Those factors are critical to the debate.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned tariff complexity. This brings us back to the responsibilities of the big six energy companies. The market is too complicated. There are too many tariffs and it is confusing for consumers. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne that those who suffer most from this tariff complexity are the most vulnerable of our residents.

Laura Sandys: May I add that it is not only the most vulnerable people in society who do not understand the tariffs? In fact, very few people understand them. A fundamental problem is the idea of a unit. I do not know what a unit is. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows what a unit is. We must start using language such as “an hour’s use of a bulb”, or some other form of consumer language. Companies need to be much less old fashioned, and much better at consumer communication. They need to communicate the value of the units and what we are paying for them.

James Morris: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The energy companies need to simplify the tariffs, but as she says, the language used to communicate also needs to change. The big six have a responsibility for communicating information in a way that is comprehensible and does not distort consumer choice. That is a fundamental issue. Ofgem has a responsibility here and the Government need to ensure that they keep the pressure on it continuously to monitor how information is distributed within this market to ensure that it is a truly competitive one. Ofgem must be on top of this, constantly monitoring to ensure that we get simplification both of the tariffs and of the information sent to consumers.
	In the short term, as other hon. Members have mentioned, it is critical during the lead-up to this winter to maintain the winter fuel and cold weather payments, and to implement the warm home discount. Those are important short-term measures to maintain the situation and ensure that our most vulnerable residents are not put under pressure as they seek to heat their homes during what might be a very difficult winter.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is making a considered speech, dealing with all the elements involved in this complex issue and specifically mentioning winter fuel allowances. On behalf of all our constituents, especially the vulnerable elderly, does he think it is good enough for the Government to say, “Because Labour was going to cut the winter fuel allowances for the over-80s and the under-80s, we are simply following suit”? Do we not owe it to our vulnerable elderly people at this time to ensure that those winter fuel allowances continue at their previous level?

James Morris: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the Government had to make some decisions about spending and they matched what the previous Government had proposed for the winter fuel allowance. I think that was a fair and reasonable decision.

Sarah Newton: On that point, many more pensioners will benefit as a result of the warm home payment. Is it not a huge problem for pensioner households that many
	elderly people do not really understand all the benefits to which they are entitled. Year after year, Age UK runs campaigns to demonstrate how many millions of people are not collecting all the benefits to which they are entitled. If they did, their household incomes would improve and they would have more money. It is important that in talking specifically about winter benefits, we should remind our constituents to make sure that they claim all their benefits. They should go down to their citizens advice bureau, Age UK or the local Age Concern and get a benefit check so that they receive all the money to which they are entitled.

James Morris: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the collection of benefits available. There is an issue about pensioners and other groups not knowing which benefits are available.
	The Government are taking some short-term measures, but it is important to note that they need to take long-term measures because this problem will not be solved by a single silver bullet. The Government are going in the right direction. This debate has provided a useful airing of views across the House about how we tackle this important problem.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the convention is that interventions should be short. Also, when addressing the House, a Member is supposed to address all of it, including the Speaker in the Chair, and not turn away so that the Speaker cannot attract the Member’s attention should it be necessary to do so.

Sammy Wilson: I am pleased to take part in what I believe is a timely debate. There is general concern about the size of the energy bills that are hitting people right across the country. This is happening in the context of rising profits for the energy companies, while—despite what the global warmists are saying—we are increasingly having cold winters, which mean an increase in people’s energy bills.
	As I have said, the debate is timely because there is a general feeling that the Government may not be giving these matters the priority that they deserve. When a Secretary of State dismisses the problem by saying, “Well, phone around and find out what the alternative costs are”, when energy companies are given a slap on the wrist but there is no real outcome, and when we are told, “Just grin and bear it, because some of this has to be done to save the world”, it is understandable that people should detect a degree of complacency.
	This is a particular issue for us in Northern Ireland. First, the profits of Northern Ireland Electricity have risen by 68% over the past year, which is commensurate with the increases in the profits of the big energy companies in Great Britain. Secondly, energy prices in Northern Ireland are about 14% higher than the average in Great Britain. Thirdly, fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is well in excess of the average in the rest of the United Kingdom, affecting 43.7% of households in comparison with the UK average of 21%.

Jim Shannon: My constituents spend 10% of their incomes on fuel, and 44% of them are experiencing fuel poverty. Strangford has the second highest level of fuel
	poverty in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s decision to reduce the winter allowance will have an unfair impact on people in Northern Ireland, as against the rest of the United Kingdom?

Sammy Wilson: Yes, and I shall say more about that later.
	Part of the problem is a direct result of Government policies that have an impact on households and businesses throughout the United Kingdom. About 50% of those who are in fuel poverty in Northern Ireland are over 60, but just as worrying is the fact that 27% of those who will find it difficult to pay their fuel bills—who will be, as we loosely term it, in fuel poverty—are in work. They are going out every day to do their business, and their wages are so low that they still find it difficult to pay. That is another reason for my belief that the debate is timely and will resonate throughout the United Kingdom.
	I will not repeat all the many causes of the problem that have already been mentioned today, but I think it worth drawing attention to the way in which large energy companies have used the prices of raw materials to raise the prices that they charge consumers, and the fact that—as a number of Members have observed—there is not the same flexibility when prices fall. That is one of the reasons for the level of profits that companies are experiencing. As many Members have pointed out, in the short term some of those profits could be used to deal with the problems.
	A second cause is lack of investment. Because of that lack of investment and because of the demand that exists, prices are bound to be fairly buoyant anyway, and there is a captive market. A third—I suspect that many people will secretly agree with this, but will not be prepared to say so openly—is the impact of the Government’s climate change policies. When we say that because we want a low-carbon economy we will charge those who use carbon-based fuels in ways that cause carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, and when we say that we will introduce policies to stop that happening, we cannot run away from the fact that such action will have implications for people’s fuel bills throughout the United Kingdom. The facts are clear. This year, simply to deal with the renewables obligations, being forced to purchase electricity from renewable sources has added £1.8 billion to the cost of producing electricity, and by 2020 the cost will be £6 billion a year. According to the Department’s own estimates, domestic consumers will face a 33% increase in the cost of electricity and non-domestic consumers such as industry will face an increase of 43%.
	I support the motion, but it makes a rather glib reference to climate change. Many people will feel that they can agree with such sentiments, but behind them is the reality of what will happen to fuel bills: people will pay more for their energy. Denmark, not our country, has the highest costs per unit and the highest fuel bills, and Denmark produces 20% of its electricity from wind power. That is the highest proportion in Europe. The lowest costs are in France, which produces 75% of its energy from nuclear power.

Robin Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that France has the lowest energy costs serves to highlight that Governments
	of all colours have been short-sighted in not investing in new nuclear before, and that we ought to be going ahead with new nuclear now?

Sammy Wilson: I absolutely agree. I have consistently supported that, and back home have received some criticism for doing so, as people ask, “Are you therefore saying we should have a nuclear power station in Northern Ireland?” If it produces cheap electricity and deals with some of the problems people in my constituency face, of course I am happy to support that—although whether there are sufficient economies of scale in the Northern Ireland market to support a nuclear power station is another matter.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the short-sightedness of previous Governments, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s U-turn. Although he tried to cover that up today, he has clearly performed a U-turn on this issue. When he was in opposition he opposed nuclear energy, but now that he is in Government he supports it, although he adds about 100 caveats to that support—the conversion process may take a little longer than we expected.
	Reference has been made to the possibility of huge shale gas finds in Lancashire. The relative costs of electricity generation are as follows: 2.2p per kW for gas-fired electricity as against 7.2p per kW for offshore wind farms. Offshore wind is therefore three and a half times more expensive.
	We say that we want 30% of our electricity to be generated by offshore wind by 2030, but that has implications for consumers across the United Kingdom. Regardless of our views on climate change, there ought to be some honesty in this debate. I do not know what the impact on global temperatures might be if we were to decarbonise our economy and reduce our CO2 emissions, which account for 2% of the world’s CO2 emissions, by 10% or 20% by 2020, but there will be a price to be paid by each of our constituents, and we ought to make that clear.

William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fuel prices will lead to many of our elderly and disabled people, who need heating most of all, not being able to afford it?

Sammy Wilson: Now that I have had my say on this particular part of the motion, I want to discuss some of the ways we can deal with the situation. We need to consider three periods. There are things we can do in the short term. Hon. Members have asked why pressure is not being put on the big energy companies to ensure that some of the windfall profits—I do not care what we call them, but we are talking about the increased profits—are redistributed in the form of lower prices. I understand that these companies have to make profits. If we want investment in the infrastructure for the future, there is no point saying that we want to strip profits from the companies that are going to have to make that investment. The question is whether those profits are excessive and whether, at this particular time, some of those profits should be going back to consumers. That could be in the form of price reductions, greater transparency about what is available or any of the suggestions that have been made, but the issue must be dealt with.
	The second issue to address is that of winter fuel payments, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Those payments have been reduced and it is not good enough for the Government to say, “We’re following the same policy as the party that used to be the party of government.” As I pointed out, part of this problem has been caused by Government policy and so it is essential that we find some way to help the most vulnerable. Of course it is going to cost money but this issue needs to be addressed.
	In the medium term, we must examine how we help people to reduce their energy bills. That could be through what we in Northern Ireland call the warm homes scheme, but what the rest of the United Kingdom calls the Warm Front scheme. The warm homes scheme was introduced by my right hon. Friend and it has gone from strength to strength. It has taken a lot of households out of fuel poverty, although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), which is that it does not matter how much is spent on some homes as there will not be a significant reduction in the energy people use so fuel poverty will remain. The warm homes scheme in Northern Ireland has not just been a way of dealing with the social problem of fuel poverty; it is labour-intensive and so has been a useful scheme in creating local employment—it has a high local multiplier effect—at a time when we are looking for opportunities.
	In the longer term, we have to be realistic about green policies. I welcome the Chancellor’s remarks that we should not be pursuing policies on decarbonising the economy if they place our economy at a disadvantage compared with others across the world. While the European Union is preaching about reducing carbon emissions, the German Government have a much more realistic view. They are actually investing in 20 coal-fired power stations and in nuclear, because they want to find ways of producing cheap energy. In the long term we have to look at our investment priorities and whether we are following the correct policy. If, in the long term, we wish to invest in that way, we need to consider how we are going to deal with the consequences.

Therese Coffey: It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. The usual faces are here—the people who regularly show up when we discuss fuel poverty in Westminster Hall—and it is a pleasure to be debating with them.
	I was intrigued by the shadow Secretary of State’s reference to meerkats. I always think of them as cute, cuddly animals that cover the ground quickly, which may be an appropriate description of the Secretary of State. My dog’s favourite toy is a meerkat, as was seen at last week’s Westminster dog of the year show. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) later asked what we are going to do about the situation. Given the fantastic adverts—dare I say it?—we are going to stand up for the consumer; anybody who watches “Meerkat Manor” will know that meerkats stand up and look around. I am not going to be overly critical of what the previous Government did, although
	it is a bit of a cheek to ask what this Government are doing given that no nuclear power stations had started being built under them.
	We need to be constructive because this issue is very important for our constituents. That is the key point that we need to unite behind, and I am pleased that there will not be a Division on the motion.
	I want to tackle something that came up in my exchanges with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is no longer in his place. I know that he is an absolutely fantastic champion on behalf of those in fuel poverty—especially for off-gas-grid households. I am not suggesting that the energy companies should be encouraged to make excessive profits; I think we should be critical friends to them, but we do have to be friends to them because this country needs £100 billion to be spent on energy infrastructure over the next 10 years, and it is absolutely right that that will come partly from the profits that those companies will make. I understand that, in effect, consumers are the people who make the profits for the companies, but, like anything else, if it comes in tax, it still comes from consumers—from our constituents. Let us not kid ourselves that we do not ultimately have to pay, together, for the infrastructure that our country desperately needs.
	I welcome the contributions that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who also is no longer in his place. He, too, has been a doughty champion for off-gas-grid households. Earlier today, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and I were at a briefing about the Office of Fair Trading report that I have here. It is quite a weighty document, but it is double-sided, so the OFT was trying to be friendly to the environment. Members should read the report because, although the press notice did not make it sound very exciting, when one digs into it, one finds quite a lot that will prove very useful.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham had an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham about another issue that has been raised today—the OFT and how people were quoted one price and then expected to pay another. I am pleased to report that Carmarthenshire county council has successfully prosecuted a supplier for that practice. If we believe that that is happening in our areas, we must make sure that our county councils or city councils take full advantage of that ruling and ensure that they go after the suppliers that behave inappropriately towards our constituents at their most difficult time of need.
	Let me mention some of the other contributions that have been made, including that of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). It is important that we make sure that our constituents are fully aware of the opportunities to seek advice on these matters. I thought that the criticism made of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State was a bit of a shame because I feel that there has been a genuine attempt to say to people, “There is information out there and there is an opportunity to switch, and we are going to try to make it easier to do so.” They will encourage people to do that. People do not need to pay a standing charge if they wish to receive gas from companies. If one is a low user, it makes sense not to want to pay that.
	I was at a dinner last night with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and we were talking about energy challenges for the next 30 years. People from the royal academies were saying that it was ridiculous that the pricing and tariff systems seem to incentivise greater use rather than less.
	To return to being a critical friend of the energy companies, there is one practice that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) would have intervened on me to make a point about if she were here, so I shall do it for her. I am talking about the practice whereby people pay so much a month by standing order or direct debit. I happen to know about this because I end up dealing with this situation for my mother—this might embarrass her. I work out that she somehow seems to be £400 in credit even though there is no way she is ever going to consume that much, but the company keeps taking the same sum each month if not increasing it. So I have to make the phone call once or twice a year and a big cheque comes back.
	I experienced similar behaviour when I spoke on the phone with a very pleasant customer service adviser who was trying to persuade me that, for no particular reason, I would double the amount of gas that I would use in the next year. However, I was able to convince her that if she did not leave my standing order as it was, I would change supplier. We all know that that argument encourages companies to listen a bit more. I put out a call today to energy companies to be friendly to their consumers and to work on these issues. I say to them, “Do not use your consumers’ direct debits or standing orders as cheap ways of borrowing, but help people to make sure that they are paying what they need to.” I am not saying that people should be given false prices so that they end up with a huge bill at the end of the year. Energy companies need to make sure that the scheme works as it should, so that MPs do not have to keep writing to the companies to ensure that such practices are not tolerated.

Jim Shannon: In my constituency, and I suspect in many constituencies across the whole United Kingdom, elderly people come to me and ask, “Should it be oil? Should it be electric? Should it be coal?” Does the hon. Lady share my concern that there should be no penalty for those who want to transfer from one energy source to another? If after a year, or perhaps 18 months or two years, they want to transfer back, there should also not be a penalty from the energy company.

Therese Coffey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The reason I am hesitating is that I probably need to think about it a bit more. There is undoubtedly a significant capital cost for switching between fuel sources. If one has a coal boiler and switches to a gas or oil boiler, there is a significant capital cost to that. I am not clear what is being done at present, but energy modelling should make it possible to model the prices and understand the impact.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in allowing me to intervene again. An example would be gas from different companies—we have two gas companies in Northern Ireland, and there are different electricity companies. The change should not be so costly. Sometimes unnecessary penalties are included.

Therese Coffey: In that case, I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s original intervention. He makes a fair point. In discussions with the OFT we particularly focused on off-gas grid households and the terms and conditions that people sign up to unwittingly. Various regulations protect consumers from unfair trade contracts, but those can be complicated. There should be as few barriers to switching as possible. I hope the Government’s actions earlier in the week will lead to that in Northern Ireland, as well as in Suffolk.
	The House has heard more today about off-gas grid than it has for a while, but it is fair to say that those who do not have access to mains gas have considerably higher costs than they would if they had access it. The percentage in fuel poverty is even worse. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) referred to that in the context of Cornwall. According to the latest statistics that I saw, 23% of oil consumers are in fuel poverty, as opposed to 10% of those on mains gas and 13% of those on electricity. There are other heating sources, including liquefied petroleum gas.
	Let me complete my comments on heating oil. The OFT study found that the market has been generally competitive. I know that came as rather a surprise to some Members, especially the statistic that 97% of households that are affected have access to four or more suppliers. The OFT said that it would share that information with us so that we can make it as widely known to our constituents as possible.
	One aspect that the report did not cover but which we can help with relates to intelligent consumers. That is where buying groups come into their own. There are several such groups around the country. I commend one village in my constituency, Boyton, which has a scheme that covers every single household. People in every household are made aware of the scheme when they move in. That is a little better than my own village, where there are several buying schemes, but my landlady forgot to include me in the one over the summer, so I will have to shell out next month. It is important that villages and parishes can reach out to their neighbours and make sure that they are fully aware and take full advantage of the opportunities.
	Reference has been made to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s 2010 report on fuel poverty. One of its recommendations was particularly useful for those buying oil, but unfortunately it was batted off to the Treasury. Many consumers, if they are organised, buy their oil in the summer when prices are lower because of seasonal pricing. A plea has been made that the Secretary of State should speak to the Treasury to see whether there might be an opportunity for pensioners to receive winter fuel payments at different times of the year so that they match outgoings for the purchase of oil.
	I also inadvertently misled the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) when I said that electricity companies automatically give a dual fuel discount to those people without access to gas. That is what I had been told by one of the big six energy companies. It turns out that only two of the big six do that, EDF Energy and E.ON, so that is something else that the other companies could do.
	Another important consideration relating to off-gas-grid households is that many of the things the previous Government rightly did to focus on updating equipment meant that a lot of the money for Warm Front was
	directed at houses that had gas. In a way that makes sense; if significant energy reductions can be achieved by focusing on certain households, that is a good use of money. Anyone who wants a return would see that as a good use of capital. However, it meant that, in effect, many households missed out. We all know that older housing stock is much more difficult to treat, which is why I have made the plea before, and will make it again, that the Government should ensure that they do not forget rural households when trying to ensure that we all benefit from energy efficiency measures.
	I have been using my iPad in the Chamber today in order to contribute to the debate. I have been able to check that rolls of Wickes ultraseal premium draught excluder—other DIY suppliers are available—cost a grand total of £3.49. I will take advantage of that this weekend, because I used it last year to provide extra seals for doors and windows in my house and I saw my consumption of gas fall by 18%. For £3.49, that is quite a good return. I encourage anyone and everyone to use the cheapest and simplest measures, such as draught excluders and the closing of doors, in older properties. I am not being patronising or saying that people must sit in front of one little heater; I am simply saying that there are some simple things we can do to ensure that we use less energy and that there are cheap and low-cost solutions.
	I agree fundamentally with something that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned earlier. I feel very strongly that Ofgem should take ownership of all gas consumers. The Office of Fair Trading has done a good job with its inquiry, but people have to go to their trading standards officer and go down all sorts of other complicated routes.
	I have just realised that I am out of time and must sit down.

Dawn Primarolo: Exactly. I remind Members that the wind-ups are due to start at 6.30 pm and that a large number of Members still wish to speak. It is not compulsory to take the full 12 minutes or necessary to take interventions. Please bear in mind the number of Members who wish to speak.

John Robertson: I will try not to use the whole 12 minutes available, as in many ways my contribution will be a repeat of a speech I gave in an Adjournment debate not long ago. I have listened intently to all Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who said that he wanted honesty in the debate. Having heard history being reinvented and regurgitated so many times by Members on both sides of the House, I think that honesty is sometimes the first thing that goes out of the window.
	I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy. Interestingly, Labour Members used to raise the issue of nuclear energy much more often than the then Opposition, who ran away and hid every time the word “nuclear” came up. I am sure that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) will say, “And I wish it had just stayed that way.”
	I can tell the Secretary of State, who unsurprisingly is not in his place, that doing nothing and giving up on things is just not an option for people. My predecessor in representing my constituency, the late Donald Dewar, once said:
	“Cynicism, together with unrealistic expectation, are the two great bugbears of politics.”
	Those words were ringing in my ears when I heard about the energy summit at Downing street. The cynicism is to think that there is nothing we can do to regulate prices, and the unrealistic expectation is the Secretary of State’s thought that asking those in fuel poverty to use less energy is a solution to the situation; it obviously is not.
	The average household has seen energy costs rise by about £300 in the past year, and Ofgem announced last week that the profit margin for energy companies has risen to £125 per customer, from £15 in June. With 13,500 pensioner households in my constituency alone—it has one of the highest concentrations of pensioners in Europe—and with the highest number of single women pensioners in the entire country, according to the Library, Members will understand why this issue is of grave importance to me as a local MP, and why I raise it today as I have on other occasions. As Members can imagine, my constituency surgeries are currently dominated by this issue.
	According to official figures, 65% of single pensioner households and about half of small pensioner households in Scotland were classified as poor in 2009, making them more likely than any other type of household to be affected by rising energy prices.
	When I was first elected in 2000, four out of five single pensioner households in Scotland lived on an annual income of £15,000 or less; today that figure is 60%— admittedly lower than the percentage when I was elected, but the level is still unacceptable. According to Scottish Government figures, almost one quarter of single pensioner households and one fifth of smaller pensioner households in Scotland are deemed to be in extreme fuel poverty, which means that they spend more than 20% of their disposable income on heating their homes. In addition, in Scotland 8% of pensioners live in absolute poverty and one in 10 over-65s are classified as materially deprived. Members will therefore understand why I keep telling people that we are on the verge of a fuel poverty crisis.
	What causes fuel poverty? There are three root causes: low incomes, poor housing and, most of all, high energy prices.

Nick Smith: My constituency is 1,200 feet above sea level, its winters can be bitter, and the latest figures show that it has 40 excess winter deaths every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have failed to stop the super-profits of some energy companies, and do not have a coherent plan to help families with their fuel bills this year?

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come on to the points that he makes, but to answer his last point, I sometimes wonder whether the Government are helping the energy companies make those obscene profits, rather than stopping them.

David Mowat: I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comment on super-profits, but perhaps he will tell the House which way he voted on the windfall tax proposed on this side of the House on those same energy companies. They are making a 60% return on capital employed in a medium-sized field in the North sea, while the people whom he criticises today in the retail sector are making much less. Which way did he vote, and why has he changed his mind?

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a completely different area. I will talk about windfall taxes later, but suffice it to say that that proposal would have stifled what we were trying to do at the time. The hon. Gentleman thought that that was a good idea, but that is because he was on his side of the House and I was on my side of the House.
	Eradicating fuel poverty involves tackling all three of the root causes that I mentioned. I have some sympathy with the energy companies as regards prices rising as a result of the influence of the wholesale energy market. As a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, I am fully aware that wholesale prices have risen by 30% this year, but I am also aware that they are lower than a few years ago. According to Bloomberg, in autumn 2008 the wholesale price for our gas hit prices of 70p a therm, compared with 59p a therm today, showing that wholesale gas prices have dropped by 15% since then. Similarly, prices in the wholesale electricity market reached £120 per megawatt-hour in autumn 2008; today, they are £51.20 per megawatt-hour, which is less than half the price back then.
	As a result, there is great suspicion by many, including Ofgem, that the big six have not been passing on wholesale market price reductions. Surprise, surprise! As far as I am concerned, these are anti-competitive acts, especially towards smaller energy companies. Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 prohibits the abuse of dominant position in a market by one or more undertakings which may affect the trade within the UK. According to the competition law guidelines,
	“Conduct may be abusive when, through the effects of conduct on the competitive process, it adversely affects consumers directly (for example, through the prices charged) or indirectly (for example, conduct which reduces the intensity of existing competition or of potential competition). A dominant undertaking is under special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair undistorted competition.”
	I have previously accused the big six of acting like a cartel on many occasions. That is supported by the nature of the recent price rises, whereby tacit collusion appears to be taking place as the big six followed one by one in raising prices at a similar rate, following a price leader. Overall, it is debatable whether that accusation would be upheld in a court of law, but it is a fair political point to make.
	The Government have not pursued every angle on energy prices, especially as one of their current positions is to say that pensioners in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland should use less gas and electricity this winter. According to the findings of the Hills fuel poverty review, which is out today, 2,700 people will die in England and Wales as a result of this year’s energy price rises by the big six energy companies. Should these people really take the advice of the Prime Minister and his Secretary of State to use less energy? I am sure that the Minister will have a copy of the review, and I
	suggest that he study it. The fact that so many people will lose their lives as a result of energy price rises means that we have to consider this seriously. I do not make that as a political point but as a point about human beings.

Ian Lavery: It was said earlier that probably 36,000 people died last year as a result of cold-related illness. My hon. Friend said that 2,700 people will die because of the price increases. Is that in addition to the 36,000?

John Robertson: Yes. According to the Hills report, that will happen because of the increases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said that that means that in every constituency in the country, four people will die for that reason. That bears thinking about.
	I would like VAT on utility bills to be zero-rated, but as far as I am aware there is an EU law against that. It is a matter for next week’s debate—perhaps it will be raised by Conservative Members, when I will probably ignore it. I should like the Government to reverse the cut in the winter fuel payment. We heard earlier that they were going to maintain the level established by the previous Government. However, the previous Government had a record of consolidating the money at the end of the financial year, and we will never know whether they would have consolidated the £100 level because we did not win the election, unfortunately. As a result, elderly people in this country are now suffering.
	Early-day motion 2279, which I signed last night, asks the Secretary of State, or Ofgem at the very least, openly to consider imposing a financial penalty on energy suppliers for anti-competitive behaviour in the energy market—or at least to remind energy companies of their social and competitive responsibilities and the consequences if they forget them. At times it feels as though Ofgem and the Government offer too many carrots and not enough sticks to the big six. Ofgem can impose a maximum financial penalty of 10% of an energy company’s turnover if it is seen to act anti-competitively. I suggest that it has been proven that that is happening. However, in its 11 years of existence, Ofgem has not once levied the maximum fine on an energy company.
	If such a fine was imposed, the money could be collected by the Treasury and put in the Consolidated Fund, and the Prime Minister could tell his Chancellor to redistribute it to the hard-pressed customers in our constituencies this winter. How much would a 10% financial penalty raise? According to the Library, using the revenue figures for 2009-10, we could raise £9.5 billion from just three of the big six, with £2.4 billion coming from British Gas alone. Alternatively, a collective penalty levied on the total sales of gas and electricity to the domestic sector, which were £27 billion in 2010, would raise £2.7 billion. Clearly, money could be raised to help people this winter not through a windfall tax, but by using the enforcement powers that are already there. However, there needs to be the political will to do that, and to ensure that our irregular regulator is doing all it can.
	Furthermore, I strongly suspect that behind these price rises we will find that the companies have grossly failed to stockpile energy reserves and to hedge adequately against future price rises. There may be a number of
	reasons for that, but I think that one is ineptitude. I also think that the answer lies in the fact that they have no incentive to do so.
	I try to represent my constituents at all times. There is a group of people in my constituency who cannot access the internet in any way. Glasgow has the lowest uptake of internet access of any city in the country. We also know that very few elderly people are connected to the internet. Therefore, despite the calls from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for people to go and find something cheaper, those people are left with what they have got, particularly those who live in houses made of concrete blocks that cannot have cavity wall insulation or any other energy efficiency measures installed. There are 400 tariffs for them to choose between, if they can understand them. The Minister could not, and I am not surprised. Left to their own devices, those people will have either to continue as they are or to switch the heating off. Consequently, 2,700 people in England and Wales will be added to the statistics, including people in my constituency.

Steven Baker: I am sure that all Members are here today for the same reason: our constituents are struggling with the excruciating price of fuel. I will explore three practical points that might help, if the Government will allow me. The first relates to supply and the other two to upward price distortions that I believe could be removed or alleviated.
	Shale gas has been mentioned and I will not go over the same ground. It seems that we have vast, abundant and cheap sources of gas in this country. We should be going through a shale gas revolution. I was glad that the Secretary of State spoke relatively warmly of the resource earlier, but I noticed that he moved quickly on to carbon capture and storage. I would like to bring to the House’s attention an article in The Wall Street Journal today entitled, “EU Weighs Pullback on Cutting Emissions”, which has the subtitle, “Commission’s Energy Department Urges EU to Reconsider Energy Transition Absent a Broader Emissions Deal”. I hope that the Secretary of State will not crucify the British people upon a cross of carbon, because if we can have a shale gas revolution I certainly hope we will. The imperative to produce cheap energy is clear, and many Members have set out the case with great talent and passion.

Sammy Wilson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Secretary of State talked about the capital cost that carbon capture and storage would add to a power station that had to use it. He talked about a figure of £1 billion plus the running costs afterwards, which would add significantly to the costs of producing energy from gas.

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It seems that these days we throw billions around casually, but those are enormous sums of money.
	I turn, then, to more billions that are being thrown around. I have learned from Matthew Sinclair’s “Let Them Eat Carbon” that the EU emissions trading scheme is costing European consumers €15.5 billion a year and British consumers €2.2 billion a year. It seems to me that if we are truly concerned about what the poor and
	the strivers are paying for energy, we should look extremely carefully at such distortions to market prices. I note that because the carbon price collapsed under the EU ETS, we are now looking at a carbon floor price of £30 a tonne. Having tried to introduce a particular market-based mechanism and found that it does not work, we are now introducing a particular piece of price fixing. I am not at all convinced that that is a good idea.
	Traditionally, Governments have interfered to pick winners, but it seems that at the moment they might be interfering to pick losers. I note that under feed-in tariffs, onshore wind receives £45 per megawatt-hour, whereas solar panels receive £400 per megawatt-hour. I am not sure those prices are a good use of taxpayers’ money, or of the system of feed-in tariffs, in the context of the shale gas resources that exist. I might go so far as to say that we seem to be entering some kind of Hegelian dialectic, in which on one hand we agonise over the price of energy and on the other hand we implement Government policies that seem deliberately to elevate energy prices, in the hope that some synthesis will emerge.

Alan Whitehead: Before the hon. Gentleman gets completely carried away with the shale gas paradise, does he not understand that it is an unconventional gas supply and therefore very expensive to extract? Does he also understand that Deutsche Bank, in its recent review of energy prices, stated that unconventional gas supplies in Europe would have no discernible effect on future gas supplies, because of increasing demand across European and north American markets as a whole?

Steven Baker: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will have to put our researchers in a room and have them fight it out, because my information is that the Deutsche Bank report has stated that a quarter of UK households could be driven into fuel poverty by being priced out of the market; that the most effective policy to bring energy costs down would be to abandon our unilateral renewables obligation, which would save 15% on costs; and that shale gas utilisation would save a further 15%.

David Mowat: It is not true to say that shale gas is more expensive than conventional gas. In the US, gas prices are now 50% of those on the European hub. That is a huge and unprecedented thing to have happened, and it is why the US is about to become a net exporter of gas. It has decoupled gas and oil prices due to shale gas. I am not saying that we can do that easily, but it has happened in the US, and it is wrong to say that shale gas is more expensive than other methods.

Steven Baker: I am grateful, and with that I will perhaps move past shale gas. My point was that there are enormous, abundant resources of shale gas. Of course there are problems, but as an engineer I just see problems to be solved and risks to be mitigated. I think we should get on with it. We must also remember the points that I touched on about the price distortions that we are deliberately introducing into the market, including the subsidising of large corporations through surplus permits to emit, which have a market value. Such distortions in the market tend to push prices up.
	Of course, prices are expressed in money, and I wish to move on to my favourite subject—the distortions that have been introduced to the market through the
	financial system. I have a wonderful chart before me that prices crude oil from a base figure of 100 in 1945. It shows that the oil price has only been high and volatile since 1971. The two lines—one is US dollars and one is gold grams—are coincident until 1971, but once we came off Bretton Woods and the dollar was decoupled from gold, oil prices were suddenly high and volatile. I showed the chart to an EU energy regulator and he was astonished because all the main events in the history of crude oil prices are simply missing from the price in gold.
	Let me move on to the chart that shows crude oil simply priced in gold and blown up. We can see that oil in gold is cheaper now than it was in 1950 and that the oscillations have been pretty much around the same mean. I have other charts relating to gold and they show that gas prices are cheaper today in gold than they were in 1994.
	It seems to me that if we are serious about energy prices, we ought to be asking serious questions about the value of money. Right now, one of the biggest problems we face is that “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke is printing dollars and distorting energy prices worldwide. That brings us back to the imperative that has been discussed: people will be in fuel poverty, choosing between heating and eating.
	I ask the Government to consider how we can deliver a shale gas revolution. I want them to consider along with the EU Commission whether we should continue aggressive green policies in isolation. I want them to consider those policies and whether it is sensible to keep pushing up prices. Finally, I want them at least to consider some of the monetary effects on energy prices that, in my view, are now crucifying us all.

Karl Turner: I am pleased to have managed to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be called to speak in this important debate. In the UK, 6.4 million homes are in fuel poverty and that number continues to rise. That is the number of households spending 10% or more of their income on their energy bills.
	There are two key factors: energy prices and household incomes. Fuel prices continue to rise at astronomical rates and Government policies have left families in this country seriously squeezed. At the same time, the six most dominant energy firms, which, as I understand it, control 99% of the market, have seen their profits increase to £125 per person. That is absolutely scandalous. The figure has increased from £15 to £125 since June, so no wonder our constituents are seriously concerned about those companies taking them for a ride. My own father—who is a constituent of mine—calls it daylight robbery. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) has said, I think that is worse than daylight robbery. It goes beyond robbery with violence and is tantamount, to me, to corporate manslaughter. It is estimated that 2,700 people will die this year as a result of the increase in fuel prices. That is an absolute disgrace.
	It is important to recognise that, in the last quarter alone, such profits equate to billions of pounds. It shocks me to hear the Secretary of State defend the energy companies, saying that they are not the Salvation
	Army. Is it not time that we looked at this carefully? People are deciding between eating and turning the central heating on, so it is perhaps time for a little philanthropy from those companies.
	The Government’s rhetoric is not good enough. We are most certainly not “all in this together”. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to arrange a publicity stunt with the energy bosses and then tell my constituents to shop around, switch energy supplier, insulate their loft spaces and save. It is dreadfully patronising to those people who have already attempted that but have found navigating the system extremely complicated. Indeed, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) experienced that when he attempted to change suppliers.
	The Government could call for an investigation into allegations of mis-selling, but they have not done so. Consumers who have been ripped off by companies should be properly compensated. In my view, that is the type of thing that the Secretary of State should have said when he addressed the House from the Dispatch Box. The Government should tell energy companies to use their soaring profits to help families and businesses with crippling energy bills.
	We need a mandatory social tariff. Energy suppliers should be forced to charge less to their most vulnerable customers, and I am confused as to why the Prime Minister did not ask for that in his energy summit. The Government need to stand up to the powerful vested interests in the energy industry, and to provide help, rather than patronising people. They are out of touch. Cutting support for the most vulnerable is absolutely appalling, which brings me on to the winter fuel allowance.
	The Prime Minister’s decision to cut the winter fuel allowance will affect thousands of pensioners, including many hundreds in my constituency—[ Interruption. ] The Minister says something from a sedentary position that I cannot quite make out, but I wish he would listen and allow me to make the points that I want to make, because if he did so, he would learn something about real people in my constituency, who are suffering quite severely.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The reality is that the allowance was introduced by the previous Government on a temporary basis. For the year after the election, no money whatever was allocated to it. The allowance was a temporary measure, and this Government have continued the policy of the Labour Government. We have not cut it; that is what the previous Government planned to do.

Karl Turner: That is absolute nonsense. This Government are running the country, and winter fuel payments have been cut by £50 for over-60s and by £100 for over-80s.

Jim Cunningham: Once again, the Minister has given an alibi. If the previous Labour Government planned what he says they did, he could change it. It is very simple.

Karl Turner: That was my point—the Government are in charge.
	Labour’s Warm Front grant has helped more than 2 million vulnerable households in England since its inception in June 2000, but this Government are phasing it out completely.

Therese Coffey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl Turner: Not at the moment.
	As I have said, household income is a key factor in fuel poverty, but the Government’s economic record on that makes grim reading. Unemployment in Kingston upon Hull East is currently about 11.5% and it looks set to increase. The Chancellor’s mistake with the VAT increase costs the average family £450 a year and a pensioner couple £250 a year, which is on top of the ever-increasing cost of energy. In addition, food inflation is at 6.2%.
	Energy prices and the greed of the big six is forcing households throughout the country into fuel poverty. Their greed is akin to the greed of the bankers. A profit margin of £125 per person when families are facing a choice between a decent meal and a warm home is utterly irresponsible. The energy companies have been increasing their profits substantially while preying on people who have no choice but to buy from one of the big six.
	The Prime Minister’s energy summit represented a demonstrable failure to act. All we heard from the Government on Monday was their intention to write to those who are struggling, encouraging them to switch to a new deal. It is patronising to suggest that many have not already done this. According to the Government, if energy bills are too high, the customer is to blame. It is absolutely shameful. The Government desperately need to get a grip of these companies and take some positive action. I welcome the fact that Government Members will be supporting the Opposition motion today, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the shadow Secretary of State, has said, people need warm homes, not warm words, from this Tory-led Government.

Damian Hinds: I am grateful for this opportunity to make what I intend will be a brief contribution to this important debate. It is timely because, as so many hon. Members have said, this is a matter of the first importance to so many of our constituents and many of the most vulnerable households. Again as has been said, many are making a choice between heating and eating. However, as the Financial Times pointed out last week, on trends that we have seen, it would not be too long before the average household is at risk of falling into fuel poverty. I know that Members on both sides of the House want to get to grips with this problem, so it does not have to be a party political issue. I am afraid, though, that in her opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made it so.
	There is much merit in the Opposition day motion, and the Government Front Bench team have said that they will not be opposing it. I do not suppose that it would be in order for me to suggest amendments at
	this stage, but long as the motion is, I think that it would benefit from the insertion of seven words. The first line reads:
	“this House believes that the energy market does not serve the public interest”.
	I would suggest inserting after “energy market” the words: “that we, the Labour party, presided over”. The Government took office after a Government who allowed extensive fuel poverty to persist, who failed to get to grips with the complexity in the market, who had no green deal and who were well off the pace on nuclear power, and all that time of course the now Leader of the Opposition had more than a passing association with energy policy. By contrast, the coalition Government have come in with bold plans to address all those issues.
	There are important community-based initiatives, such as oil clubs, which have been mentioned once or twice, and organisations such as Greening Petersfield and Greening Alton and Holybourne, in my constituency, which are working with some of the most vulnerable people to take sensible, simple measures to better insulate their homes and to save money. Although there are many aspects to this debate, I want to talk briefly about just two: first, the implication of the green deal for the prices that, in particular, the most vulnerable people are paying and the need to ensure that they share in the benefits of the green deal; and, secondly, the need to tackle market complexity.
	I welcome the green deal hugely. It is an innovative approach to this practical issue and could contribute to employment and growth—it is investment in the truest sense of the word. However, we need a few reassurances, particularly on how small businesses will share in the work and on how the quality of workmanship will be guaranteed. Specific to energy prices, however, I hope that the Minister will say something about how the green deal will work for people on pre-payment meters and about how the interest rate regime will ensure that those households and consumers considered the “highest risks” will not be effectively priced-out of the benefits arising from the green deal.

Luciana Berger: We fully support the green deal, which we piloted when Labour was in government in the pay-as-you-save scheme. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about pre-payment meters and interest rates, which were two points that we laboured in the Committee stage of the Energy Bill, sadly without getting answers. I know that I should be making a short intervention, but I would like to return to his point about the community element. We sought in Committee to secure lower administration charges for those smaller businesses, community projects, social enterprises, charities and co-operatives that want to take part in the green deal, but the Government rejected our amendments. Will the hon. Gentleman ask them to reconsider that?

Damian Hinds: The fact that the hon. Lady made those points does not make them bad points, and there will be further detail to come. Things do not necessarily have to be on the face of the legislation. As the green deal is introduced, I am sure that ensuring that the most vulnerable households share the benefits will be high on Ministers’ list of priorities.
	The second point that I want to cover briefly is about complexity in the market. We know that there are hundreds of tariffs on the market—one of which, slightly
	inexplicably, involves getting a free football shirt. In some ways, complexity in the energy market is a reflection of increasing complexity in consumer markets in general. Those visiting the Sainsbury’s wine aisle now need to take a Hewlett Packard scientific calculator to work out the best deal, whereas those looking for a savings account or a credit card deal need to spend quite a long time working out the best deal in the first place and, more importantly, need to be sharp and ensure that they cancel it at the right time to get the savings. Things are becoming harder for consumers, but they are especially difficult with energy because it is that much less tangible and has that much more complexity to it.

Justin Tomlinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an excellent speech. On empowering consumers, one of the challenges is that most people are incentivised to switch accounts when their prices are hiked, only to find a few weeks later that their new supplier has also hiked its prices. Does he agree that one solution would be to block price rises for new customers for the first six months after signing up to a new tariff?

Damian Hinds: My understanding of the recent Ofgem announcement is that there is some provision for ensuring that what it calls innovative price tariffs must have a fixed element to them—funnily enough, I was just coming to more or less that very point. I welcome Ofgem’s new requirement for a single, simple tariff per payment type, but we need to ensure that that does not beguile us. I used to work in the hotel business, and anyone who has ever stayed in a hotel might be familiar with the rack rate. That is the price pinned on the back of the door, which is nominally a perfect reference price that people can use to compare hotels. The problem is that hardly anybody pays the rack rate; rather, all the competition centres on the other rates. That does not mean that such rates are a bad thing, but we would not necessarily be able to say that we had thereby solved the problem.
	When it comes to solving the problem, we have to remember that the comparison websites—all the puns about meerkats and Go Compare were getting a bit much earlier—are commercial enterprises. Although they allow people to compare, the click-through payments that they receive mean that they have an incentive for screen biasing. The Consumer Focus code and accreditation are welcome, but that is not quite the same thing as ensuring that comparison sites operate absolutely perfectly in the public interest. I hope that it might be possible to consider a new model of comparison websites to sit alongside those that already exist, which would be broadly modelled on a website called Lenders Compared. I do not know how many hon. Members are familiar with Lenders Compared—probably not that many—but it was set up as a result of the Competition Commission investigation into high-cost lending and enables consumers to compare the cost of various home credit operators and others.

Cathy Jamieson: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, some of which I agree with, but I wonder whether he will take up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) made about many people on low incomes, particularly those with disabilities, not having access to websites.
	I met a constituent this week with a visual impairment who is finding it extremely difficult to get information that he can access easily.

Damian Hinds: The hon. Lady is absolutely spot-on; indeed, I was just coming to that point. There are organisations and individuals who assist people with such matters, and a simple comparison mechanism could be very useful for them, too.
	I raised the question of how many hon. Members had heard of a website called Lenders Compared. I suspect that the answer is not many, which illustrates a problem. It is all very well having a pure comparison website, but if no one has heard of it and no one looks at it, it is not doing its job. Such sites therefore need some marketing spend behind them. I suggest that Ministers might have a discussion with the industry about creating such a service, to be funded by the industry itself. People might ask why the industry would want to do that, as it would cost it money, but I think we might be surprised at how much it might be willing to consider, if not fully welcome, such a proposal, because of the pay-per-click marketing fees that it would save as a result of that tranche of its business going through such a site. So, that is my suggestion du jour for Ministers. I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. I am going to try to fit in as many speakers as I can. I am therefore reducing the time limit to eight minutes, with the usual extra time for interventions.

Pat Glass: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. This subject is of huge interest to the energy-consuming public, and these are matters of real fear and anxiety to many of them. We should remember that many of these British companies that are making big—even obscene—profits right now are the same utility companies, energy companies and communications companies that used to be owned by the British people. Whatever artificial market situation successive Governments put in place to try to manage those companies’ profits and markets, they continue to operate as a virtual oligopoly. There are few suppliers in the market, and entry into that market is virtually impossible. Those suppliers’ actions therefore have a disproportionately negative impact on prices.
	The bottom line is that those companies were nationalised for a good reason—namely, to stop them using their strategic position to drive up prices. Ironically, we now find that our most strategic energy, water and communications companies are foreign-owned and are demonstrably using their position to drive up huge profits for a small number of senior staff and shareholders. We have moved from a position in which all of us owned and benefited from those companies to one in which only a small number benefit massively while the rest of us lose out big style.
	I am not suggesting that we should renationalise those companies, but the present situation is clearly not working for the consumers of this country. It needs
	urgent reform. I am really pleased that the Government are supporting the Opposition’s motion today, including the part that calls on them to
	“reform the energy market to break the dominance of the Big Six by requiring them to sell power into a pool, allowing new businesses to enter the market, increasing competition and driving down energy bills for families and businesses”.
	To me, that means breaking up the big six, and I hope that that will be the Government’s policy. I also hope that the Opposition will hold them to account on that.
	It is the greed of those energy companies that has brought about this situation. This year, they have fallen over themselves to announce big increases. British Gas went first, increasing its gas prices by 18% and its electricity prices by 16%, but that was quickly followed by similar increases from Scottish Power and the other four. This might not be a cartel as we know it, operating in smoke-filled rooms, but it appears to be a cartel that operates by watching Sky News to see who is going to go first before rushing in with similar price increases. To me, that is still a cartel, and it is the British consumer who is losing out.
	British Gas defends its massive price increases and blames us, the customers. It tells us that we are not paying enough to reflect the increased cost of gas and electricity on the wholesale markets, and that that will depress its profits for the first half of this year. Not surprisingly, organisations such as Consumer Focus and Which? disagree with that, telling us that wholesale costs have actually gone down and are still about one third lower than their 2008 peak, yet the energy companies’ profits have risen substantially over the same period. So, costs on the wholesale market have gone down, and energy profits have gone up. For example, British Gas has had a 44% increase in its gas profits and a 21% increase in its electricity profits. Last year, British Gas’s residential business—not its whole business; just the residential part—made £740 million profit. I am not against companies making a profit, and I believe that everyone is worthy of their hire, but that is obsessive, and it is the poorest people in this country who are paying most.
	All that leaves British energy consumers facing massive increases in the cost of energy at a time when wages are being frozen, food prices are rising, petrol and diesel prices are soaring and travel costs are ever increasing. About 9 million households in Britain face an average dual fuel increase of £190 a year. We were told last week that the energy companies made £120 profit from the average family on a dual fuel deal, increasing from £15 in June this year. That is nearly a 700% increase for the average family.
	The Prime Minister’s response, therefore, is disappointing to say the least. He had the energy companies in on Monday, but instead of showing them the instruments of torture, he seems to have introduced them to the tea and coffee-making facilities. It is just not good enough. We desperately need the Prime Minister to start taking these people on. It was an opportunity wasted.

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument to show how these massive energy cost rises are having an impact on the individual consumer. Does she agree that there is also a negative
	impact on British business, particularly on high-energy-using British manufacturing businesses, so it is yet another struggle for them in these difficult times?

Pat Glass: I agree, and it is not just businesses either; it is schools and colleges, too, that are being driven hard by these increases.
	The Energy Secretary’s response has been equally disappointing. He has given us a White Paper on reform of the electricity market, but in my view, it is big on complicated legal mechanisms while saying nothing or very little about the impact of these increases on households. He has given us a list of his meetings with small providers and he has launched yet another Ofgem review into energy prices—the 18th such review so far. Personally, I do not find that impressive; I think the Energy Secretary should be doing more.
	Finally, we are moving towards another winter and the nights are drawing in with temperatures beginning to drop. My constituents are telling me in my surgeries—not just now and again, but every time—that they are having to choose between putting the gas on or feeding the kids. Frankly, in the sixth biggest economy in the world, nobody should have to make that choice. I am pleased that the Government are supporting the Opposition motion, but they need to get a grip on this problem—and fast.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) in the light of how this debate has developed and evolved. She has made a constructive and considered contribution to a debate that is going to conclude with a clear consensus, whereby this Parliament can move forward and encourage the Government to do a great deal more.

Ian Lavery: rose —

Andrew George: I do not think I have said anything yet, but I am happy to give way.

Ian Lavery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he as surprised as I am that Government Members are supporting the Opposition motion when it is highly critical of many aspects of energy prices and Government policies?

Andrew George: No, I am not at all surprised that the Government have decided that, on balance, looking at the motion—it could, of course, be tinkered with—it says a lot of the right things. We need to start coalescing around the issue to move it forward effectively in the interests of the nation. My concern is that we started this debate in the customary and traditional manner of a yah-boo pantomime. There is a sense that we are obliged to endure the opening of Opposition day debates in that way, so I am pleased that we seem to have moved on from the traditional type of exchanges—when we hear the trading of “It’s your fault” followed by “No, it’s yours”, which takes us nowhere and certainly does not impress the country as a whole—and identified areas on which we can agree. That is what the country wants us to do. Rather than wasting our energy—if Members will excuse the pun—on the yah-boo pantomime, we should build on the constructive speeches made by
	Members in all parts of the House today. Given that there is a great deal of agreement among us, we must ask what it is that we all agree we can do.
	I accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a self-declared ambassador for the sharp-elbowed middle classes who will be scrutinising their bills, understanding what they mean, and chopping and changing on a regular basis, but the fact is that 60% of the population do not do that. Although it was rightly said at the energy summit that there should be a more transparent and effective way in which consumers could become informed and make informed choices, the fact is that many people lead busy lives, cannot penetrate the opacity of the bills with which they are presented, and do not understand how choices can be made.
	I may not be a member of the sharp-elbowed middle classes, but I am so busy doing my job that I know more about my constituents’ finances and bills than about my own. I never get around to dealing with these issues, and I would not recommend anyone to follow any of the financial decisions that I make about my own life. I am sure that many other Members have the same problem.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) referred to a five-point plan. Usually three is about as much as we can count up to in the Chamber, but five is very helpful. He spoke of the need for greater transparency, and the possibility of regulating standing charges. I think that that idea should be thrown into the melting pot, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
	Others, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), suggested that, given the profiteering of the big six, a windfall tax should be introduced. We know that we cannot opt, as a country, for a Soviet-style state-owned energy system—and there is no appetite for that in any part of the House—but the fact is that, although the system will of course continue to be in private hands, we need to do something about the profiteering. The idea of introducing a windfall tax, or threatening to introduce one if the energy companies do not start demonstrating that they are prepared to provide a genuine and a better service rather than simply putting money into the pockets of their shareholders, might also be thrown into the melting pot. We need to do more to incentivise fuel efficiency, which is not something that energy companies favour at present. They want to sell their energy and do not necessarily want people to conserve it, and we need regulations that will encourage that to happen.
	Earlier, I mentioned rising block tariffs, which exist peripatetically more or less throughout the industry. I hope that the Government will think about those, because they plainly disincentivise fuel efficiency in the domestic market. Many other Members have mentioned key meters and pre-payment arrangements, and we should also consider special groups such as park home owners. The hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), among others, made telling references to off-grid energy and, in particular, to the LPG market.
	We should not ignore a minority group, namely the rural poor, and in particular the fuel-poor in rural areas. We should bear in mind that 29% of households with oil-fired central heating are in fuel poverty. It is clear from the position in my constituency—it includes the Isles of Scilly, which means adding a further 20% to the LPG costs—that many people are struggling to pay
	their fuel bills in rural as well as urban areas. The Office of Fair Trading report is of course welcome. It suggests that most customers now sign two-year exclusive contracts with their supplier. That is the maximum time allowed following the Competition Commission investigation. Under those contracts, the supplier usually retains ownership of the tank, which makes it hard to switch supplier if prices rise. The Government must keep an eye on that.
	In debates such as this we always hear from the climate change deniers—the environmental equivalent of deficit deniers. The balance of opinion in peer-reviewed science is clear, however: if we do not address this issue, there will be significant economic costs and impacts for future generations. We must deal with it; we cannot simply close our eyes.
	I understand that the Government will make an announcement on the renewables obligation certificates review shortly. I hope we get a significant degree of parity between Scotland and the countries south of Hadrian’s wall in respect of ROCs. In my constituency, we have the first commercial-scale wave hub in the country, and I give the previous Government great credit for having invested in it. Although it is based just outside my constituency, the wave hub itself lies within it. It is important that we have measures that encourage such initiatives, so I hope that we have a favourable outcome to the ROCs review.
	This has been a constructive debate, and I hope we can take the key issues forward constructively with all parties engaged.

Alex Cunningham: This debate covers the important topics of rising energy prices and their effects. The combination of a sharp rise in energy prices and an economic downturn has resulted in families already feeling the pinch. The coming winter is predicted to be the coldest on record, yet there is no substantive action from the Government. We must challenge that, or many more people will suffer.
	I am proud of Labour’s record in office on energy issues, and especially on fuel poverty. We ensured that support was focused on the most vulnerable groups. The winter fuel payments were introduced by Labour, and they have helped more than 12.7 million people in 9.2 million households to keep their homes warm. Warm Front was the Government scheme for the fuel poor, and it has helped more than 2 million vulnerable households across England since its inception in 2000. I was very disappointed to learn that the current Government are phasing that programme out, thus ending 30 years of Government-funded programmes. The north-east led the way in many of those endeavours. There were tremendous schemes in my area, Stockton-on-Tees, as well as in Redcar in Cleveland, and in Newcastle and Gateshead. However, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said earlier, fuel poverty levels are still high in our region.
	Labour also started the process of energy market reform, which would have opened up the market to new entrants, thus increasing competition and thereby giving consumers greater choice. To ensure that that was not merely an empty gesture, we wanted to back it up with tough legislation to protect consumers from the vested interests of the big six energy companies. However, it
	seems that this Tory-led Government are showing their true colours. They are siding with big business over ordinary people by failing to take on the big six at the very time the country needs them to take decisive action in order to stop many ordinary families plunging into fuel poverty and debt.
	Perhaps the Government are ready for action, however. I, too, am delighted that they have decided to accept our motion. It recognises that the forecast of a cold winter and the cuts in Government support will lead to millions of people struggling to heat their homes. The Government accept that tonight, and I hope they are going to do something about it. More importantly, their acceptance of the motion means they agree that we need to break up the dominance of the big six by requiring them to sell power into a pool to allow new entrants into the market. Does the Minister plan to announce tonight that the Government will compel the big six to pool their energy, thus driving down prices?
	What are the Government’s plans? We need to see people get help with their energy bills—this is such a basic need—so that they are not pushed into financial hardship. I wish to concentrate my remarks on fuel poverty. Lower bills are always the answer. The best way to reduce fuel poverty is to put money in people’s pockets, but this is not just about excessive energy prices; it is also about more fundamental issues, such as the poor-quality heating and insulation in too much of the country’s housing stock, and low household income.
	I know that the energy suppliers have a responsibility to play a substantial part in helping to eradicate fuel poverty through meeting the cost of energy-efficiency measures, but the Government have a tremendous role to play too. Under the last Labour Government, we saw tremendous success for the Warm Front programme and initiatives such as the warm zones, with which I was personally involved. Millions of homes benefited from the schemes, with well-insulated homes and efficient boilers saving individual households hundreds of pounds a year. There was an extra dividend of better health, thanks to people living in warm, dry homes. I well remember taking executives of the then Lattice Board, the parent company of my employer, Transco, now part of the National Grid Company, to visit houses in Thornaby on Tees, in my neighbouring constituency. One resident invited the executives to feel the wall and said, “Its warm, isn’t it? It used to be stone cold.” We had a warm zone fan there.
	Sadly, the Tory-led Government have not seen fit to build effectively on what was achieved under Labour, when the number of people in fuel poverty tumbled from more than 5 million to slightly over 1 million. Since then, the price rises, some of them justified but others doubtful, have meant that that figure has rocketed upwards and we are back to having the disgraceful number we inherited from the Tories in 1997. Yes, we had success, with people in my local Stockton-on-Tees borough council area faring better than most, but still some of the hardest to heat homes with solid walls remain cold, with families and individuals unable to afford their energy bills even before the recent hikes in prices. According to statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government, more than 1.3 million
	children are estimated to be living in the coldest, worst-insulated homes. That is truly shameful in 21st century Britain.
	The energy companies have obligations to consumers and manage them in different ways, with mixed success, often through no fault of the companies themselves. Many of the schemes require further investment or match funding by the local authority, and failure on its part to find such funding means that the very schemes to improve people’s homes and cut their fuel bills simply cannot go ahead. That will occur more in the future as the Government’s huge cuts to local authorities restrict their ability to invest in this vital work.
	We need to see a change in the Government’s proposals to make homes more energy-efficient. We must ensure that the resources the energy companies are compelled to spend on these measures are properly targeted at those in greatest need in the homes hardest to heat, without there being a need for councils, or perhaps housing associations, to find match funding they simply do not have. Energy companies do work hard to try to meet their obligations and some achieve the necessary credits, doing so more efficiently than others by taking advantage of their massive size and buying power. We can all understand their taking that advantage, but perhaps it is time to look at a way in which each company would be responsible for a financial commitment to energy-efficiency schemes, rather than meeting specific energy targets. This is perhaps a personal view, but is there not a case for companies to pay a fixed levy, based on turnover and profitability, directly into an independently managed fund, which would ensure that all that hard cash finds its way to the households that need it most and that we get the best value for money?
	MPs should be under no illusion: many ordinary families and pensioners in Britain are facing incredibly tough times at the moment. The toxic combination of rising unemployment, rising food and fuel prices, the increase in VAT and the freezing of wages leads to ordinary people facing a huge struggle just to make ends meet. The cost of a typical dual fuel bill has increased by 48% since 2007, meaning that energy bills are now one of the single biggest outlays a household faces. The latest fuel poverty statistics show that 5.5 million households in the UK cannot afford to heat their homes adequately. It is time to change. The bills need to be cut now and the big six need to become many more.

David Mowat: I will speak as briefly as I can about three issues: unconventional gas, fuel poverty, and what we should be doing about the big six—or, perhaps more pertinently, what we should not be doing.
	First, I do that think that unconventional gas is a panacea, but the Government need to take it a little more seriously than they have up to now. There has been a lot of discussion about wholesale gas prices rising and getting bigger and bigger, but that is not wholly true. It is true in Europe but it is not true across the world. In the US, the Henry Hub market for wholesale gas is now 50% of the level that it is in Europe. If we were purchasing gas at that price here, we could cut all fuel bills by one third immediately. That has been achieved by a remarkable technical innovation to do with fracturing and horizontal drilling, which is probably the most
	significant change in the energy industry in the past two decades. It has not happened here yet and there is some way to go before we can say that it will happen here, but both the industry lobby and, frankly, the green lobby are very suspicious of unconventional gas. In my view, that is why the Government need to take it seriously. The US has been able to generate more energy from gas than from coal, and that has a massive impact on its carbon emissions. The quickest way for anybody to reduce carbon emissions is to replace coal with gas as soon as possible. I would like to see that taken point more seriously, and it is not true that gas prices are increasing everywhere worldwide—they are not.
	Secondly, we have heard a lot about fuel poverty and there have been some very powerful speeches, particularly from Opposition Members, on this issue. I have heard the figure that 2,700 deaths are the result of fuel poverty each year. That is a terrible statistic and is one that we all need to take seriously.
	We missed the opportunity a decade or perhaps two decades ago to embark on a programme of cheap nuclear power in the way that France did, and frankly we are paying the price for that now. However, I believe that both sides of the House voted for the Climate Change Act 2008. It may well be that we need that Act and that it is the only way forward, but we need to be clear about the implications, because whichever way one looks at its requirements, it puts up the cost of energy. That might be right, but putting up the cost of energy in that way increases fuel poverty at the margin, all other things being equal. We talk about CCS, wind power and solar power, all of which cost more than gas and other methods, and it is very important that we fully understand that they do not come cheaply. We need to be very careful, as we legislate more for targets of 80% reductions by a certain date, that we understand what we are doing.
	Finally, I want to talk about the big six. As has rightly been said—I heard it said recently—most of those companies are now foreign owned. The other thing about the big six is that we require them to spend £200 billion in our country in the next 15 years. They can choose whether they do that or not, but if they do not, we will face a bigger problem here than fuel poverty: the lights will go out. Coal stations will be coming off stream in the next three or four years and nuclear is coming to the end of its life. We face a very serious issue here in a way that no other country in Europe does and, as far as I can see, the only way we can deal with that is through massive investment—some of which, perhaps unfortunately, is going to have to come from those people, who are, as has rightly been said, a cartel in some ways. I have heard language today about them; indeed, I think I heard an Opposition Member accuse them of criminal behaviour and of being a cartel that had rigged the market and that should be fined 10% of turnover, which would cost them £10 billion. It is a terrible thing to accuse directors of criminal behaviour. We have no evidence of that and it is not true. We have an oligopoly and we have to manage it.

Luciana Berger: Four of the big six energy companies have admitted that they had been involved in doorstep selling practices that they have now had to stop because they were wrong. They were mis-selling packages on the doorstep which meant that people were paying more for their energy.

David Mowat: Is it the position of the Opposition Front-Bench team that the big six should be fined 10% of turnover? That was the point made from the Opposition Back Benches during the debate.
	We have also heard words such as “obscene greed”. We have to make the market more competitive, and I agree with the motion that it is right that to get new entrants coming in and to make the market more transparent. It is clearly right that we make it much easier to switch between suppliers. I hope the Government make progress on that as quickly as they can.
	Eight months ago Government Members voted for a windfall tax on energy companies, including one of the big six. That proposal, which was opposed by almost all Opposition Members, has resulted in fuel prices coming down for motorists, which is part of the mix. I find it a little difficult to take that the Opposition opposed that windfall tax on people who are making more money in terms of return on capital employed than the big six, and now the Opposition say that we are being light on the industry.

Nigel Evans: Order. We have three remaining speakers. The winding-up speeches will start at 6.30, so speeches of just under eight minutes, including interventions, should get everybody in.

Chris Evans: I will try to keep my comments short. I have listened to the debate and I am seriously concerned. We seem to talking about tinkering with a market that has failed. Let us be straight about it. We are told that for the next 10 years we will be faced with volatile energy prices. Consumers are being ripped off. When privatisation was first mooted in the Chamber nearly 30 years ago, I do not believe that anybody on either side of the argument would have envisaged that we would be faced with the madness of six energy companies holding us to ransom, punitively putting up prices, while the Government stand idly by.
	Yesterday I read an article about Centrica, which owns British Gas. Centrica has paid out almost £145 million in shareholder dividends, yet the average dual fuel customer will pay £1,317. I am not singling out British Gas for criticism because, in June and September, all the big six increased their energy prices. All of them are bringing misery and pain to the consumer. When I talk about misery and pain, I understand what it means. I have people coming to see me and saying that last winter, which was the coldest on record, they were sitting in their living rooms with their duffel coats on and going to bed at 8 o’clock at night, fearful that when the utility bill drops on their doorstep, they will not be able to pay it.
	Fuel poverty has affected the most vulnerable in society, but it seems that we are at the tipping point where anybody on an average household income could be in fuel poverty. I think of the pensioners living in my constituency, many of them former miners with industrial diseases, who have to keep their houses a little warmer than other people do because of the diseases they suffer from. They are feeling the pain. When I read statistics that tell me that, between 2003 and 2009 in my constituency, Islwyn, there were 41 excess winter deaths, and right across my country, Wales, there were 1,700 winter deaths, I think to myself, “Why, in the
	21st century, are people dying of the cold?” It is like something that we would read in Dickens, yet it is happening now.
	What do we get? We get the Prime Minister, in response, inviting the big six energy companies to tea and biscuits at Downing street. Yes, I am sure that a day-long energy summit will fix a cataclysmic failure of the market, which has seen the emergence of a legal cartel, for want of a better word.

Jonathan Lord: Is it not the case that over the past 10 years only 50,000-odd customers have been serviced by independent suppliers because the previous Government had so much red tape and regulation in the market? That is why we have the big six and why others are unable to get in.

Chris Evans: I do not agree, and I am sorry but I do not think that that adds to the debate at all. We have to deal with the here and now. The simple fact is that people’s lives are at risk because of the profiteering of six energy companies. That is where we are now and it has nothing to do with the past 10 years. People are dying because of a cartel of companies that put profit above people.
	What do we do now? We have a problem in this country. The Secretary of State says, “Oh, it’s like buying a £20 toaster, or a £40 toaster.” It is not like that. If I want to buy a television, I can walk into Currys and the retailer will charge me depending on whether I want an LCD television or a plasma screen. It is not like that in the energy market. Electricity is electricity; there is no luxury version and everyone needs it. How do the electricity companies create competition? They do so by creating tariffs. In some cases there are more than 100 different tariffs. Which? magazine has reported that a trained accountant could not understand his own energy bill. What hope do elderly customers or vulnerable families have when trying to work out their energy bills?
	We are faced with problems of energy security. It seems to me that we have three options. One option is a windfall tax on the energy companies. It is all very well saying that we should tax the energy companies to the hilt until the pips squeak, to use the words of a former Labour Chancellor, but that would only be a short-term solution to the problem. Judging by how the energy companies are acting at the moment, I fear that they would probably pass the costs of such a tax on to the customer.
	The second option, and probably the best one, is to get more entrants into the market. I would like to see energy being sold in banks, in supermarkets, or by any lifestyle company, but the problem is that the barriers to entry are so huge that they cannot get involved. There is an absolute monopoly on the power stations, which are owned by the big six. They can charge whatever they want.
	What can the Government do? They have an option. They could create a central electricity body, just as Ofgem suggested in its Project Discovery report, which would mean that there would be a single energy supplier. It could be set up not as a nationalised company, as under the old rules, but as a co-operative, with profits being pumped back into the system to improve
	infrastructure. These are ideas that we may have to talk about, because eventually we will have to come here and talk about our energy needs, but what can we do in the short term?
	One major problem is that Ofgem has no teeth. I do not believe that the big six are particularly worried by warnings from the Competition Commission or inquiries by MPs and Select Committees. They do not care. There have been more than 18 such inquiries since 2001, and what has happened? Energy prices have still increased year on year. We must do something now. Let us give Ofgem real teeth and real powers to punish those energy companies.
	I will end my contribution to the debate by saying that we face something extremely serious, and we must pay it serious consideration and ask serious questions. For so many people, such as those in my constituency, it really is a matter of life or death.

Alan Whitehead: What the public want to know, in the context of this debate and elsewhere, is why energy prices keep going up, and why we have the so-called rocket and feathers effect, whereby prices go up when wholesale energy prices go up, but they do not appear to come down when wholesale prices come down. The truth is that, in terms of our knowledge of how these things work, it is difficult to find out why—for the reason, among others, that the market is now so un-transparent and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) just outlined, so concentrated in so few hands.
	It is true that the price of wholesale gas has varied over several years between about 70p and 15p a therm, but nevertheless the overall trend is up. Indeed, a recent Deutsche Bank report suggested that notwithstanding shale gas, gas prices will probably double by about 2014. It is true that wholesale prices are going up, but the increase does not bear close relation to the energy company price rises that we have seen. That is the central problem. Some 46% of our generation is by gas, the price has increased by 90% over the past 10 years, and other prices follow gas as the market maker.
	All that is based on trading in an energy market that was set up 10 years ago, with 20-odd wholesalers, 20-odd retailers and little vertical integration between them. It was also established at a time of privatisation, when those companies inherited a market in which we were self-sufficient in gas and had a substantial capacity margin in electricity generation plant. Neither is now the case.
	Furthermore, the market was created carbon-blind; its purpose was simply to keep trading prices down when there was no vertical integration. It did so for a while, but now we are in entirely different territory. Indeed, six large companies control 99% of the retail market and about 60% of generation, and they have some grid and transmission assets as well.
	The power of such vertical integration means that the market that was created 10 years ago simply no longer works. The long-term deals that the companies set up account for almost all energy company trading, they are mostly bilateral and totally un-transparent, and energy companies trade with themselves, so it is difficult to see where the pricing goes and whether it is fair to the consumer.
	More and more, the big six also hedge their arrangements on price variables, so they all mirror each other, and the result of a price increase by one is that, inevitably, other companies put up their prices, too. Increasingly, therefore, there is effectively—even if not deliberately—a cartel-type price arrangement.
	As for new entrants, they are almost all retail-only, and they have to buy their power from the big six. It is a bit like encouraging corner shops to set up, knowing that they will have to get their stock by shopping at Tesco and then somehow compete with Tesco on price.
	There are also still positive Government disincentives for new entrants. Small retailers, for example, are exempt from the recently increased obligation payments for up to 125,000 dual-fuel customers. Above that level, however, not only is the company obligated for all levy payments, but all customers are then eligible. In other words, their 125,001st customer costs them £7 million, and on that basis no small niche company in their right mind right now will seek to exceed 125,000 customers. It is a straightforward lock-out disincentive.
	Monday’s energy summit did not deal with any of those issues. We were exhorted to switch, which is a good idea, but in those circumstances, and for the reasons that I have outlined, it is of only marginal utility. Logically, one cannot keep switching and saving what is claimed—and anyway, some 80% of customers simply do not switch, leaving the big six energy companies with a huge pool of resources to draw upon in order to outcompete those small entrants on retail tariffs.
	As we have heard, tariffs are hopelessly confusing. It would not be beyond the wit of the regulator or the Government to introduce mandatory simple tariffs—a standing charge and a tariff per unit used. I personally favour introducing rising block tariffs, which make lower usage levels even less expensive.
	Insulation was dealt with at the summit, where it was stated that 4 million people were to get letters saying that they could get insulation free—on the basis that support from the public finances for insulation measures will disappear in 2013, after which there will be the green deal, which will provide the same insulation, but in exchange for a permanent charge on the property. I am not sure that many members of the public would automatically see that as the good deal that some people suggest.
	We must deal with the market. The Government have confirmed that electricity market reform proposals are coming forward, but those proposals do not deal with the way that the market actually works. The Government put all sorts of bells and whistles on the back of the proposals—contracts for difference instead of the renewables obligation, capacity payments and so on—but they do not address the central issue of whether the market works for the future, how transparent it is, and whether other ways of trading would be more fit for purpose in this century.
	We need a pool system of 100% auctions on all markets, or a single-buyer stakeholder pool. That will ensure transparency and a level playing field for new entrants and, if coupled with an obligation, will ensure an orderly dispatch of energy between wholesaler and retailer. That is not addressed in electricity market reform, but it is addressed in the Opposition’s motion. It is good to see that the Government have apparently
	signed up to the idea that there should be a pool, so I anticipate that they will shortly make amendments to the White Paper on electricity market reform in order to bring about a pool as the centrepiece of a new electricity market system.
	We need aggressive policies on energy efficiency and insulation. We currently have no idea how the green deal will work. No funding has been identified, and it may not be available in very large quantities for the energy company obligation. On that basis, there is no real prospect of achieving the levels of insulation that we need, combating fuel poverty or pushing down bills.
	Environmental measures do not account for a large proportion of bills. Indeed, last year the previous 6% level fell. The Government are stuck in a dilemma. They want the big six to undertake most of the investment of up to £200 billion in new plant and grid renewal that we will need, but unless those companies make big profits they are unlikely to undertake that investment. However, several of the companies are over-borrowed in any case. We need different sources of money to ensure the reality of a transparent and investable future.

Nigel Evans: Order. The wind-ups are to start no later than 6.30 pm.

Michael Weir: In his opening salvo against the Labour party, the Secretary of State rightly condemned the previous Government’s decision to close the Peterhead carbon capture project. Inexplicably, he went on thereafter to pull the plug on the Longannet project, which drives a coach and horses through energy and industrial policy. We have been told for months, if not years, about the prospect of carbon capture and storage producing an export potential, but that will now be lost. After Peterhead was not proceeded with, we lost the lead on gas carbon capture and storage, and the same will happen with the Longannet project. That is a daft decision that will come back to haunt this Government.
	Fuel poverty is affecting more and more of our people. A total of 770,000 homes in Scotland are in fuel poverty, and for every 5% rise in energy prices, a further 46,000 move into that situation. The last energy price rise was nearly 20%, which shows the effect that those rises have. That is an utter scandal in an energy-rich nation such as Scotland. Last week Ofgem said that the profit margin for energy firms had risen to £125 per customer per year—up from £15 in June—with the average dual fuel bill now £1,345 per year. And that cannot be considered in isolation. Just as energy bills are rising, so is the cost of road fuel, food and other essentials. This week’s inflation figures are a grim reminder of the pressures on family budgets at a time when wages are static, at best. In June I received a written answer about energy price inflation, which showed that in four of the last five years the rise in domestic energy prices had outstripped the rate of inflation, whether we use the retail prices index or the consumer prices index—and that was before the recent round of price hikes.
	Last week we had the energy summit. I fully understand the need for energy efficiency, and I support it, but we must be honest and accept that the current rate of price rises far outstrips the ability of the average family to reduce their bills through greater energy efficiency. At best, energy efficiency might mitigate some of the rise.
	I will cite my own experience in this area. I pay for my gas by direct debit. I took measures to reduce energy consumption and managed to reduce my gas usage substantially, yet I still found that the gas company wished to increase my direct debit payment. I suspect that many families will face the same situation. I urge Ministers to watch their language when talking about the effect of energy efficiency measures, because the claims that they reduce bills may well turn out to be hollow, and put people off taking the necessary measures. A little honesty would not go amiss.
	A similar situation exists with regard to switching. Much has been made of the reduction in the number of people switching. I do not find that particularly surprising, because the pool of potential switchers is bound to be reducing. Again, Ministers have to be much more honest about the effect of switching. It seems to me that unless one is on a particularly bad tariff or using a pre-payment meter, the benefit of switching will not be great. Call me cynical, but I also wonder about the apparent follow-my-leader strategy of the energy companies on price rises. Switching when one’s company raises its prices might just mean that one’s price rise is slightly delayed, until the new company gets around to doing the same. There is also evidence that many of those who switch end up on a worse deal. In that respect, I welcome the promise of more transparency. That is urgently needed on pricing and tariffs.
	Another outcome of the summit was that the 8 million quarterly credit customers were written to, telling them of alternative payment methods. That is all very well, but the truth is that many of them will not want to change, because in difficult financial times many people juggle their bills, delaying the payment of one bill in favour of paying a more pressing one. Such people may not want to pay by direct debit, because they would have no control over when the money left their account.
	I strongly support the effort to increase insulation, with the proviso that I have already mentioned about being more up-front about the benefits.
	Although many of the factors affecting fuel poverty and energy prices are outwith their control, the Scottish Government are pushing forward with efforts to tackle this problem. As well as holding discussions with the energy companies, they have introduced an energy assistance package worth £33 million, which has helped 150,000 people on low incomes to reduce their energy bills. One in six Scottish homes have been visited for a home energy check, and almost 18,000 installations have been made. The scheme has been extended to help the most vulnerable. In addition to helping pensioners, the scheme now includes the disabled, families with young and disabled children, those with severe disabilities and the terminally ill. It is to be extended next month to people on carer’s allowance, which could benefit up to another 7,000 households. Next year the £50 million warm home fund will also be in operation to give additional help to the fuel poor.
	That is in stark contrast to what the coalition Government are doing. In his comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor announced cuts of more than two thirds to Warm Front, and over the next three years, responsibility for the assistance package will pass from the Government to the energy companies.
	That brings me back to the energy companies. It is easy to paint them as the unrestrained villains of the piece. However, I do have some sympathy with the position that they find themselves in. They are being told to invest in new capacity, and at the same time they are being attacked on prices. The Ofgem report shows the vast amounts that they are making in profits. I recall one particular occasion when I was on the Energy and Climate Change Committee and we had the big six before us. We pressed them on where they made their profits. They managed to deny simultaneously that they were making profits on generation and that they were making profits on selling energy. That prompts the question: where were the profits are coming from? If we are all in this together in these difficult times, as is claimed, we have to recognise that when family incomes are not rising the energy companies have to make their contribution. We have to take action to force them to reduce prices, because asking them to take action does not seem to be working.
	In closing, may I ask whoever is winding up for the Opposition to explain one point about energy being pooled? I can understand it in the case of electricity, but I am less sure about how it would work in the case of gas, particularly as so much of our gas is now imported, much of it in the form of liquid petroleum gas. I cannot see how that can possibly be pooled for the benefit of gas customers.

Luciana Berger: I am pleased to have the chance to close this afternoon’s Opposition day debate.
	This year, millions of households across our country will face a cold, hard winter. In 12 months energy bills have risen by a fifth, whereas energy companies’ profits have increased by 700% in the past few months alone. Across the country, people are struggling to keep their homes warm and the lights on, as their spending power has been squeezed. As we have heard today from many Members on both sides of the House, people are having to choose whether to heat or eat.
	After hours of debate today, it is clear that the Government are not taking the action we need to make bills simpler and prices fairer. The debate has shown that there is a real choice between a Government who would rather stand alongside the big energy companies than stand up for the hard-working majority, who cut support for our constituents when they need help most, who walk away when families are struggling with higher food prices and gas bills and worrying about their jobs and their children’s futures; and a Labour Opposition who are prepared to make the tough choices, stand up to the powerful vested interests of the closed energy industry, provide real help to people this winter, and take action to reform how our energy market works for the long term.
	We heard in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) how families and small businesses in their constituencies are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) highlighted in his intervention the challenge of energy-intensive industries.
	Businesses and households have been hit hard by the highest level of inflation ever, crippled by the Government’s rise in VAT and squeezed by energy bill increases. It cannot be right that almost a quarter of all British households now spend 10% or more of their disposable income just to keep warm. Many Members, including the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), also identified the additional cost challenges faced by customers who live off the grid.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) highlighted the real problem of the withdrawal of Government support. The Government are replacing the social tariffs, which provided support for vulnerable consumers, with the warm home discount, from which just one in 20 pensioners will benefit. They are leaving a gaping hole by reducing the Warm Front scheme to a third of its size but putting nothing in its place to support vulnerable people this winter, and they are reducing the winter fuel allowance by up to £100, despite promising before the election not to do so.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Glasgow North West made the point that according to the interim Hills fuel poverty review, which was released earlier today, there will be 2,700 winter deaths this year as a result of fuel price increases, which is a staggering four people for each of our constituencies. This is a life-or-death issue that transcends political divides.
	The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about the wave hub and the need to encourage renewable generation, and he is hoping for a positive outcome from the ROC review. We are, too. We share the view that if we reform the market and invest now in low-carbon energy generation, we can secure our future energy supply while creating thousands of new jobs. We know that 80% of people currently pay too much for their energy, but who does the Secretary of State blame for that? The energy companies? The bewildering array of more than 400 complex tariffs? No, he blames us, the consumers, for not switching supplier.

Dave Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that even when people switch, many of them find they are paying more for their tariff than they did before?

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I shall cover that point in just a few moments. There has been an issue with doorstep selling, which four out of the six energy companies have had to stop because it has been proven that people were mis-sold packages and were paying more than double what they were before. We know from last week’s Which? report that a third of people are not offered the best advice from their energy suppliers when they call them for advice about which tariff to switch to.
	On Monday, we heard and saw all the news about the energy summit and thought that that was a great opportunity. The Government could have done something tangible to help, but all we got was more of the same. We were told to shop around, ring this number and look at that website. I looked at the DECC website to see what the exact outcome of the summit was, and it tells us:
	“This winter suppliers will place a cheaper tariff signpost message on the front page of bills, encouraging customers to call their supplier or visit a website to find out if they could be saving money on their energy bills.”
	We already know that many people do not have access to the internet or to websites and cannot benefit from cheaper tariffs because they do not have access to a bank account or because they are unable to secure direct debits, an issue that specifically affects pensioners. We already know that that approach does not work, but the energy summit had no outcome on simpler tariffs, improving trust, reforming the market or increasing competition. It showed an out-of-touch Government wedded to an out-of-date orthodoxy at the expense of everyone else.
	In her opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) set out a very clear plan to limit energy cost increases and to support struggling households.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady mentions the clear plan from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), but will she clarify for the benefit of the House whether it is now Labour policy to break up the big six, as the leader of the Labour party suggested, or to have a Competition Commission referral? May we have some clarification?

Luciana Berger: The Leader of the Opposition has said that we are seeking to break the dominance of the big six. He has not explicitly said that he wants to break them up—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. We must have interventions from the Dispatch Box. It is no good the Secretary of State chuntering from a sedentary position in the faint expectation of being heard.

Luciana Berger: The point of the debate is that we are trying to get action from the Government now, this winter. We have not seen anything from the Government that will help my constituents and those of all hon. Members. Anyway, as I shall say later, we are very grateful for the Government’s support for our motion.
	First, we believe that we need an immediate investigation into mis-selling by energy companies and compensation for consumers who have been ripped off. For too many years, cold-call doorstep sales have led to hundreds of thousands of people paying more for their energy after switching to a worse deal. As I said only a moment ago, the news that four of the big six have ended that abusive practice is welcome, but questions remain about selling methods. We want an immediate investigation with proper sanctions to restore trust. The Secretary of State said before that there will be compensation for anyone ripped off in the future, but we are concerned about the thousands of people who have already been affected.
	Secondly, the energy companies should use their ballooning profits to help families and businesses struggling to make ends meet by cutting their bills now. Last week, Ofgem published research showing that the average dual fuel bill is now a mammoth £1,345 per household, but at the same time energy companies have seen their profits soar, with their margin now standing at a whopping £125 per customer, up £110 in just four months. It is
	wrong that energy companies are raising their profits by 700% when consumers are being told that bill increases are unavoidable.
	Thirdly, the Opposition believe that we need transparency, meaning that companies need to be clear and open about how much it costs them to buy their energy. Only then can customers be clear that they are getting a fair deal.
	Fourthly, we want simple tariffs. We need tariffs that are fair to consumers, but that are also easy to understand and compare. Something is wrong when 70% of consumers say that they find the number of tariffs on offer confusing. A daily standing charge covering the cost of delivering energy to people’s houses and a unit price so that people can see clearly how much they are paying would mean an end to confusing charges, making it easier for them to compare suppliers’ prices properly.
	Finally and most importantly, we need reform of our energy market, which for too long has been dominated by a handful of companies. At one time that seemed to be working, but no longer. It is clear that those vested interests are looking after themselves handsomely, while their customers struggle. As Ofgem has shown, and as many Members said this afternoon, as soon as the wholesale price goes up, so do people’s bills; but when wholesale prices come down, bills do not follow.
	The market is broken and we need to fix it. We want all generators to sell all their power on a long-term market to any supplier. By reforming the market in that way and by opening it up, new entrants can join, increasing competition and lowering bills.
	We also need action on securing our future energy supply, which means taking tough decisions now. Investing in low-carbon energy generation will create thousands of new jobs and drive our economy. However, under this Government, sadly, we are going backwards.

Therese Coffey: I hear a lot of talk about the energy companies and recognise that we want to be critical friends. Does the hon. Lady think that they are producers or predators?

Luciana Berger: The point is that we want responsible business, which is what this debate is all about.
	The challenge currently is that the Government are creating uncertainty for investors by playing political games with climate change. The Opposition do not believe that that will grow our economy. Talking down the green economy might sound good to a Conservative party conference, but what does it say to the companies that want to put their money behind carbon capture and storage or those that want to invest in renewables? What does it say to the small business owner who is thinking of providing energy-efficient goods or the manufacturer that is planning to build parts for a new generation of wind farms or solar panels? To them, talking down the green economy says: “Think again.”
	We have a choice: we can be a leader or a follower. The jobs, investment and prosperity can come here, or they can go elsewhere. We want Britain to be a world leader, but for that to happen, we need a Government who get it. We have seen today that this Government do not get it.
	For households in the squeezed middle, for vulnerable people and for millions of small businesses who need lower bills, now is the time to take action. Now is the time to make pricing transparent, to simplify tariffs, to tackle mis-selling, to demand that the energy companies use their profits to help to reduce energy bills this winter, and to reform the energy market. I urge hon. Members to take that action today, and I am delighted that the House supports Labour’s motion.

Charles Hendry: I am delighted to have the chance to respond to what has been, broadly, an excellent, high-quality and wide-ranging debate. Some contributions were perhaps overly political, but for the most part they were thoughtful. That reflects the genuine concern on both sides of the House, and the fact that in every single part of the country, people are worried about fuel prices this Christmas and this winter. They want the Government and the Opposition to work together as effectively as possible to try to deal with those issues.
	That is why we have said that we will not oppose the motion—I could happily have written much of it myself. The motion states that the energy market is in urgent need of reform. That is why we ignored the Labours party’s claim before the election that there was no case for reform and have started the most wide-ranging reform process of the past 20 years.
	The motion refers to concerns about Ofgem’s study into prices and margins. We encouraged Ofgem to carry out that work, and it was under this Government, not the previous Government, that it was started. The motion states that
	“energy tariffs are confusing and unfair”.
	Everyone who has spoken in this debate has talked about the difficulty of switching suppliers owing to the complexity of the system. That is an issue on which we really want to see progress. It also calls on us “to investigate mis-selling”. We are putting that right, although it would have been within the gift of the previous Administration to have addressed it—but they did not take that opportunity. The motion asks that we apply a simple format to tariffs so that people can compare them easily. Again, that is work that we are taking forward through Ofgem.

Dave Watts: rose—

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman popped in 10 minutes ago, while others have been here for five and a half hours, so I shall not give way to him.
	The motion calls for the publication of trading data, but Ofgem, under this Government, have now engaged forensic accountants to untangle the accounts of the big six. It also refers to breaking the dominance of the big six, but it is this Government who have started to facilitate the process by which smaller companies can enter the market and by which power generation can be auctioned off by the major companies. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) asked whether the Government were going to stand alongside the big six. I think that we have shown, through our actions, that we are prepared to tackle the abuses that were there when the leader of the Labour party was Energy Secretary, and we have decided to move things forward.
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) talked about the energy summit. I hope that, on reflection, people will realise that the messages from that summit are important to our constituents. No one is pretending that they are the full answer or the long-term answer, but all our constituents would be well-advised, in the run-up to this winter, to consider what they can do themselves to mitigate high prices. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has never said that consumers should be blamed for current high prices, but he has said that there are things that we can all do and which we should be doing. Ridiculing that, as she did, might be good politics, but it does not help her constituents. If the alternative that she is suggesting is that they should not check their bills—my right hon. Friend has said how valuable that has been—consider switching or insulate, under her suggestion, her constituents would suffer this winter.

Caroline Flint: The Opposition are certainly not suggesting that people should not try to get the best deal. The problem is, as has been amplified today, that they cannot find the best deal when they try. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech—if I heard correctly—that the letters that people receive will tell customers what is the cheapest deal for them. Will they get that specific information or will they just be asked to ring a number to check?

Charles Hendry: It will be a combination. That information will be on their bills if it is believed that they could be on a cheaper tariff. We advocated such a measure while in opposition, but it was rejected by the then Government. Also, letters specifically suggesting that someone would benefit from changing will be sent to them when the company believes that they could be on a lower tariff.
	In addition, we need to focus on the economic realities. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), to whom I respond with the fondness with which he spoke himself, said that he was going to be political, but actually gave one of the most balanced and effective speeches of the debate. He talked about the role of the big six and the fact that we need them for the country’s future electricity and energy security. He and his constituents will know how important the two German companies, RWE and E.ON, are to the building of a new power station. He was right to say that this debate was not about whether we are pro-business and anti-consumer or anti-business and pro-consumer. We need those energy companies to invest in the future of energy generation in this country if prices are not to go through the roof because of insufficient supply.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Warrington South (David Mowat) drew attention to the massive challenge and the £110 billion that has to be invested this decade in our future energy infrastructure if we are to keep the lights on. The existing energy companies are part of that process. There need to be others, but we cannot achieve that if we drive away the existing players.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), who spoke with his usual sincerity on a theme that is familiar to him, almost implied that we would be better off without those companies. However, if we drive them out, who will invest in the nuclear plants that he wants? It will be international companies
	that choose to make those investments, but if he says that they are not welcome here, the nuclear renaissance that he and I both want simply will not happen. If we reach a point where supply does not meet demand, the first thing that will happen is that prices will go up. His constituents in Scotland—as well as those of the hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) in Wales—will be the worst affected by that, because they are the ones who use the most electricity, as they are often at home, owing to the conditions that he spoke about, in the coldest climates in our country. They are the people we must bear in mind for the longer term if we want to address the problem properly and effectively.
	We have looked at the profits that the companies are making compared with their profits globally. Their profits in the United Kingdom are often a small part of their overall profitability. We need those investors to play a bigger role, just as we need more companies coming forward.

Alan Whitehead: rose—

Charles Hendry: I will give way if there is time later, but I want to respond to all the points that have been made.
	At the end of a year when we have seen the worst nuclear incident for decades, the worst oil and gas incident and unrest in the middle east, where so much of our oil and gas comes from, it was inevitable that there would be upward pressure on prices. Looking ahead to next winter, the wholesale gas price is 40% more than it was last year, and gas makes up 40% of our generation, which makes a knock-on consequence inevitable. In the face of those global pressures, we should focus on how we—the Government, Parliament, industry, consumer groups and individual Members—can ensure that we support our constituents through this period.
	I do not say this to make a political point, but we should recognise that there is a legacy issue that needs to be picked up as well. We need to secure investment in this decade at twice the rate of the last decade. We have to play catch-up, and the market reform process, which was put off for too long, now needs to be addressed. We have acted to prevent consumers from being affected by price increases that would otherwise have happened. The carbon capture and storage levy was going to be included in people’s bills; we have taken it off, saving them an equivalent of £1 billion over time. The previous Administration’s renewable heat incentive would have added an estimated £179 to annual bills by 2020, but we have removed it to ensure that we cut the impact on consumers, while the tough decision that we took on feed-in tariffs will save consumers £3.5 billion to 2020. The Labour party could not have been stronger in opposing that, but we believed that it was right to be on the side of consumers rather than wealthy investors. In the renewable obligation banding review, which we will publish shortly, we will show how we want to use those resources most efficiently and effectively to introduce the low-carbon economy that we want to see.
	There has been criticism of the level of green charges—the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was one of the people who raised that—but it is sensible to put them in context. Some £20 of a typical gas bill of £600 relates to green or environmental charges, whereas £41 in an electricity bill of £500 relates to environmental charges—well under 10%—with a further £19 relating
	to energy efficiency programmes in the homes of some of the poorest in our communities, which is work that we should all support. In total, therefore, we are talking not about the figure of £200 that we read in the press—we have challenged the media to say why they have quoted that figure—but about £80 in a bill of £120, which is not the real reason why energy prices are being driven up. We have said clearly that we will look carefully at how those moneys are allocated to ensure that we deliver the best possible growth outcome in this country.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) talked about standing charges and rising block tariffs, which the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) also picked up. My concern is that switching the system would not just penalise people in the largest houses, but would hit the people who, because of circumstances beyond their control, are the major energy users. They are people who are older and at home more, and who need more warmth in the winter. They are people who have disabilities and perhaps cannot get out. They might be large families, perhaps on low incomes, or people who are out of work. In making the kinds of change that the right hon. Gentleman advocates, we would have to be very careful that they did not have a perverse consequence, and that the people who, through no fault of their own, have to use more energy—particularly heat—would not be adversely affected in the process. We will look at the ideas that he has put forward, but we need to be aware of the potential consequences.
	We could have made progress on this matter earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) called for greater transparency in energy bills. In the 2010 Energy Bill, we tabled new clause 4 on that subject, but it was voted down by the Labour Government. The kind of information that we will now require, proposals for which we are asking Ofgem to take forward, would have been addressed more effectively if that provision had been adopted. We tried even earlier, when we tabled new clause 4 to the 2008 Energy Bill. That dealt with environmental charges and clarity in bills, but it was voted down by the then Government.
	We have heard many contributions on energy efficiency. That, too, is an area in which we could have made greater progress. We proposed the green deal in an amendment to the 2010 Energy Bill, but it was blocked by the Labour Government. We could have had 18 months more progress on insulation, on dealing with energy efficiency and on taking a long-term perspective on these issues, rather than trying to deal with them on a small-scale basis.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) was absolutely right to highlight the important role that the warm home discount will play, and the help that it will provide. He was also right about the need to speed up the process on smart meters. We pushed for that in the 2010 Energy Bill, and I have been pushing for it since 2006. Only now are we in a position to try to take some of those measures further forward. In all those areas, we are making up for lost time.

Albert Owen: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Hendry: I will not give way, as I have several other points that I want to make, including some on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about off-grid consumers.
	He said that he would like us to meet up and talk about the issues, and I would like him and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for St Ives, and others, to talk to me about how we should take this work forward. Important work has been done by the Office of Fair Trading, and we need to look at how to take that further. The issue that was raised about differential pricing and price on delivery has been addressed, and the OFT has said that it will continue to look at examples of market abuse.
	I want to see what more we can do to develop the gas grid, because that would be of real benefit to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. I also want to see what additional powers would need to be taken, and where. The OFT’s report suggests that the market is working in almost all parts of the country, but we need to be certain, as our constituents face very high bills over the coming months, that we are doing this in the most appropriate way.
	The role of shale gas was mentioned, but that issue will not affect energy pricing this winter. It is too early to know whether it will be a game-changer in the United Kingdom, but it could have a significant role to play. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) that it would be unwise to bet the farm on shale gas, unless his farm happened to be in north America and sitting on top of a shale gas deposit. However, we look forward to these technologies and the contributions that they can make as we will take forward a wide-ranging, all-embracing energy policy.
	There has been a legacy of neglect. There has been a failure to secure the necessary investment in new energy infrastructure, and to address fuel poverty, which rose from 2.4 million to 3 million households over the course of the last Labour Government. There has been a failure to give consumers the clarity that they want, and to facilitate an effective changing regime, but that is now being put right. There has been an absolute failure to grip the challenges of energy efficiency. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said that, for too long, those issues had not been addressed, and she was right. For too long, they were not addressed, but we have now taken forward many of the measures that the motion calls for—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36) .
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question put accordingly and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the energy market does not serve the public interest and is in need of urgent reform; notes with concern research by OFGEM showing that average household energy bills have risen, while energy companies’ profit margins have soared; recognises that, with a cold winter forecast and Government support cut, millions of families will struggle to heat their homes; believes that energy tariffs are confusing and unfair, meaning that 80 per cent. of people currently pay more for their energy than they need to, and that consumers who try to switch are often given inaccurate information; further believes that to tackle climate change, build a new low carbon economy and make the UK a world leader in green energy, which will bring new industry and jobs to the UK, people need to know that the energy market is fair; and calls on the Government to investigate mis-selling and ensure consumers are compensated, introduce a simple format
	to be applied across all tariffs, so that people can compare the full range of energy deals at a glance, increase transparency by requiring energy companies to publish their trading data, reform the energy market to break the dominance of the Big Six by requiring them to sell power into a pool, allowing new businesses to enter the market, increasing competition and driving down energy bills for families and businesses, and demand that energy companies use their profits to help reduce energy bills this winter.

ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10 January and 14 June 2011 (Armed Forces Bill (Programme) and Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question  agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

Co nsideration of Lords amendments

Clause 2
	 — 
	Armed forces covenant report

Andrew Robathan: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 5.

Andrew Robathan: This group of amendments deals with the armed forces covenant report. Amendment 1 reflects the concerns in the other place about what some considered to be an unfortunate juxtaposition that would result from inserting the armed forces covenant report clause in the Armed Forces Act 2006 directly after section 359, which deals with pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war. This Lords amendment, which the Government accept, will have the effect of moving the clause to a different position in new part 16A to the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the new part will be entitled “Armed Forces Covenant Report”. So, for the future, the covenant report will have its own part within the legislation. I commend this change to the House.
	Lords amendment 2 deals with inquests. It responds to the views expressed in this House and in the other place about the desirability of including the operation of inquests in the list of topics to be covered in the armed forces covenant report. It addresses an issue that is close to the heart of many right hon. and hon. Members. Our intention has always been that, when the Defence Secretary prepares the annual report, he should have regard to the whole range of subjects within the scope of the armed forces covenant, including the operation of the inquest system for bereaved service families.
	We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed in both Houses and we have decided to accept the amendment. In so doing, I wish to put on record our understanding of what the amendment envisages. The effects of service that the Defence Secretary could cover as a result of this amendment could encompass a wide range of inquests for both veterans and serving personnel. In accordance with his understanding of what the amendment envisages, the Defence Secretary will exercise the same discretion on this topic as on the other mandated topics—namely, he will consider which groups of service people and which aspects of the operation of inquests it is appropriate to cover in his report.
	Quarterly ministerial statements on military inquests are already provided to Parliament; indeed, they have been since 2006. They are accompanied by detailed tables outlining progress in conducting an inquest for each fatality resulting from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the wide range of potential issues, our expectation is that in current circumstances the annual report will focus on similar matters to those covered in the quarterly statements. Our understanding of what the amendment envisages is that it is intended to be broad, but that there are matters that should not be covered in the annual report.
	Members are well aware that inquests and coroners are independent of Government. In so far as the Government provide a legislative framework for inquests,
	this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, so I wish to make it clear that the Defence Secretary will not report on matters concerning the general operation of the inquest system, but only on those that affect service people.
	It is clearly essential that investigations into the deaths of service personnel are treated equally in the annual report, regardless of where they are held in the UK. So, where appropriate, the Defence Secretary will under his general powers under this clause report on matters relating to the operation in Scotland of fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of service people. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who died in the service of their country. This amendment emphasises the debt we owe to the members of our armed forces who have given their lives and to their families. I urge the House to agree to it.
	I deal now with the three Government amendments 3 to 5. These relate to the involvement of other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations in the preparation of the annual report. The fact that there are three separate amendments simply reflects the advice that the proposed new section of the Act was becoming too long and should be split up. It has no other significance.
	During the Bill’s passage much attention has been paid to the relationship between the Secretary of State for Defence, who will be responsible for laying the annual report before Parliament, and the Ministers and Departments responsible for delivering many of the services discussed in that report. The annual report will of course be on behalf of the United Kingdom Government as a whole. However, the Government have responded to concerns expressed in both Houses, and the amendments introduce a framework enabling Parliament to be absolutely clear about who is contributing what to the report.
	The Defence Secretary will in future be under an obligation to obtain the views of the relevant Departments on the matters covered in the report, and to seek those of the relevant devolved Administrations. That difference in emphasis reflects the different constitutional position. We are working with the devolved Administrations on the covenant, not imposing new duties on them. The Defence Secretary will be required to set out those views in full, or to obtain the Department’s agreement to any summary of their views. If the devolved Administrations have not contributed to part of the report, the report will make that clear.
	I also draw the House’s attention to a number of undertakings given in another place on 4 October by my noble Friend Lord Astor of Hever on how the annual report will be prepared. In particular, the Government have made a commitment to consult the covenant reference group at an early stage on the issues that will be addressed in the report. The amendments, together with those commitments, underline our determination that the preparation of the annual report should be an inclusive and transparent process, so that Parliament can rely on its highlighting the key issue of the day. I commend them to the House.
	Lords amendment  1  agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.
	After Clause 23

Commonwealth Medals

Andrew Robathan: 1 beg to move, that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.
	The amendment inserts a new clause in the Bill which would permit members of the armed forces and Crown servants who are, or who have been, awarded Commonwealth medals to wear them without restriction. The debates in another place on the subject of medals leave no doubt about the emotions surrounding this important issue. The amendment raises questions about the process and rules for deciding on the acceptance and wearing of awards given by foreign and Commonwealth nations, about the position within that process of Her Majesty the Queen, and about recognising and supporting the Commonwealth.
	The Government’s position on the fundamentals of how the system should work remains the same as that of the last Government, who, I remind the House, were in office when the issue of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal was considered. It has been held by every previous Government since King George VI established the current system. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—the HD committee—was set up to advise the sovereign on all issues relating to honours, decorations and medals. It consists of senior Crown servants from the Departments most involved. Where relevant, the views of service Chiefs of Staff are fed in and reflected in the advice given to the sovereign.
	The thinking behind this approach is straightforward. When British citizens, whether civilian or military, carry out their duty to the sovereign and to their country, it is for the sovereign to decide on the award of honours for that service. That allows us to be consistent in our response to all foreign or Commonwealth states. It prevents a situation in which, if other states were free to honour UK citizens as they chose, there might be suggestions of patronage or influence. It also means that the advice given to the sovereign about the grant of honours is consistent across Government and, as far as possible, dispassionate. Decisions on whether to reward service should not be made in the glare of public or political debate. I do not pretend that absolute consistency has been, or always can be, maintained. Sometimes exceptions have been, and no doubt will be, made. This amendment would lay down for the future a new rule about medals: that those awarded a Commonwealth medal shall be entitled in all circumstances to wear it. However, it would also apply that rule to Commonwealth medals awarded in the past, including the PJM medal.
	I do not wish to dwell today on the issues surrounding the PJM or any other specific medal. The Government will remain engaged with the Lords, who have argued strongly that the present arrangements for the PJM are not right. I recommend that the House should disagree with amendment 6 as this is not an appropriate matter for legislation.
	The amendment overturns past decisions made on Commonwealth medals. In doing so, it establishes the precedent that Parliament may overturn—after any length of time—any decision of the sovereign as the fount of honour. It takes away from the sovereign—and, indeed, from the United Kingdom—any control over the acceptance of Commonwealth medals in the future. It is drafted in
	terms which apply whenever a Commonwealth country chooses to honour members of the armed forces, veterans or other Crown servants, even if that was against the wishes of our armed forces or, indeed, the sovereign. More generally, it establishes a further precedent that Parliament can lay down and change the rules which are to be applied to decisions on the acceptance of honours. It does away with the safeguards I have mentioned, such as the need for a basically consistent approach to awards by all friendly and allied states. It takes us to a system where decisions on the award of past, present and future honours are made in the party political environment of parliamentary consideration, rather than through the largely non-political approach set up by King George VI. I believe this is wrong in principle.
	In addition, the amendment would create a different principle for the wearing of medals awarded by Commonwealth nations from that which applies to those awarded by other allies. The operations in which our armed forces are involved are increasingly international, with British units working alongside United Nations, NATO or European Union partners. We could not readily explain to non-Commonwealth allies, and especially to the individuals they wish to reward, why we treat their awards on a fundamentally different basis from those offered by a Commonwealth nation. Making a distinction of this kind is not the way to reflect our respect for the Commonwealth.
	No system is perfect. As my noble Friend Lord Astor has stated in another place, officials have been instructed to look at the process by which advice about the institution of medals and the acceptance of foreign awards for military service is put together, considered and submitted to Her Majesty, and at how decisions are promulgated. They will then consider whether any advice should be given to Her Majesty about the need to review the process and make changes. We aim to conclude this work before the end of the year.
	Lord Astor also said that, in the light of the continued strength of feeling about the PJM, we would put in hand representations to the HD committee to reconsider the position. That is the right way to handle such matters. The wrong way is for Parliament to overturn Her Majesty’s decisions and to establish a precedent for Parliament to lay down new rules. In particular, we should not make a rule which removes all further involvement of Her Majesty and the United Kingdom from decisions on Commonwealth awards.
	These awards should be made in a measured, dispassionate and independent manner away from the glare of public debate. I urge the House to disagree with the amendment.

Paul Murphy: I will not detain the House for long. The Minister said party politics should not be involved in the granting of awards and honours, particularly those from Commonwealth countries. I entirely agree, and I think he will agree that this amendment is intended not necessarily to change the law on these issues, but rather to bring attention to the situation with regard to the PJM medal. Our constituents have great difficulty understanding why these veterans, who are probably in their 60s and 70s and who have been awarded this medal by Malaysia, can receive it but cannot wear it. The approach is strange and very inconsistent. The Minister has said that there has not
	been complete consistency in the past on how these medals and awards are dealt with. I do not think for a second that a precedent would be broken here, because precedents have already been broken on who can and cannot wear particular medals.
	It is also incongruous that the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders who fought in Malaya in the 1960s and 1970s can wear the medals but our British veterans cannot. They fought the same battles and the same war, and they deserve the same recognition. One assumes that the Queen’s Governments in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere advised Her Majesty that it would be possible for this particular medal to be worn. Indeed, I am informed that the last Governor-General of Australia was a recipient of the PJM medal and was allowed by his own Government, on the advice he must have given to the Queen, to wear that medal. It is incongruous, is it not, that the former Governor-General of Australia can wear the medal but somebody in my constituency who fought in Malaya in the ’60s cannot?
	I am grateful that the Minister indicated that the Government would look again at the issue of the PJM medal.

Andrew Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent case for reviewing the entire system, and we are currently carrying out a medals review. I assure him that it is a genuine review, not a—[Interruption.] Not one as conducted by the Government of whom the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) was a member.

Paul Murphy: The Minister has already indicated that both Governments did not really resolve this issue. The previous Government examined it carefully. Lord Touhig, the then Member for Islwyn, raised it on a number of occasions, both by way of an Adjournment debate and elsewhere, but he got nowhere with the Government of whom I had been a member. Nevertheless, it is important that the Minister understands the huge strength of feeling on this issue up and down the country. This is not about taking away the powers of the sovereign and it is not about the prerogative; it is about dealing with the simple issue that veterans who fought in Malaya in the 1960s should be allowed to wear the medal which they have been allowed to accept.

James Gray: I rise briefly to echo many of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). A significant number of my constituents cannot understand why they are not being allowed to wear the PJM medal. They are puzzled as they believe it to be a genuine medal, and it was gazetted as such in the London Gazette in the 1960s. I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am persuaded by the Minister’s statement that he intends to examine the procedure by which these things are decided. I agree with him that the Lords amendment may not be the right way to address this problem. I am therefore persuaded to support the Government in voting against the Lords amendment, on the understanding that he will indeed carry out a genuine reconsideration of the process. By that means, he may well help my constituents who are puzzled by the law that says they cannot currently wear the PJM medal.

Gemma Doyle: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this amendment, and I am very disappointed that the Government are objecting to it. Lord Craig of Radley made a strong case for his amendment in the other place, supported by Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, arguing that our veterans and service personnel should be permitted to wear Commonwealth medals that have been awarded to them. It is very humbling to talk to service personnel and veterans about the experiences that have led to the awarding of a medal, and they should have the right to wear proudly the medals that they have earned.
	I support the need for the awarding of medals to be fully considered by the cross-departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, but we cannot continue to have anomalies such as veterans being awarded a medal but not being given the right to wear it. This amendment therefore seeks to address the specific issue in relation to the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal.

Andrew Robathan: I know that—[ Interruption. ] Actually, I think it is quite gentlemanly. The hon. Lady cannot be held responsible for the actions of the previous Government because although she may have supported them, she was not in the House, but sitting next to her is someone who was doing my job not 18 months ago—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). This was not a matter of any concern to him then.

Gemma Doyle: That is not an argument for not acting this evening. If the Minister will allow me to make a little progress, he will understand why we are supporting the amendment this evening. I have no desire to upset royal prerogative, and I respect traditions and conventions, but I did not come into Parliament to accept the status quo meekly—I stood for Parliament to challenge conventions that institutionalise unfairnesses such as this. As we have heard this evening, many Members in the House have recognised and acknowledged that unfairness in their support for holders of the PJM.
	Colleagues on both sides of the House, some of whom have now moved to the other place, have campaigned on this issue for many years. I think that in the beginning they would have accepted the response that this was a matter for the HD committee, but now, after years of politely asking the committee to reconsider this matter, Parliament must stand up and take a lead. There cannot be many Members here who have not been contacted by a holder of the PJM who would dearly love to wear their medal. My constituent Moira Murray from Dumbarton, who served in the RAF and travelled to Malaysia to collect her medal, visited me during the summer to say how proud she would be to wear it. Moira is joined by thousands of other brave British veterans who served in Malaysia in the 1950s and 60s who have been awarded the PJM by the grateful Malaysian nation, which was keen to recognise their contribution, but the HD committee decided that they should be allowed to accept it but not to wear it.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I will give way, but I hope this is going to be a different point to the one that has already been made.

Andrew Murrison: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way but she really cannot get away with her synthetic outrage. During 13 years of her party’s Administration nothing ever happened on this. Will she at least give credit to this Administration for setting up a fundamental review of honours and decorations through the appropriate committee?

Gemma Doyle: I am not making party political points and this is not synthetic outrage—indeed, it is not outrage. I am putting forward quite a rational case for supporting the amendment that the Lords have put forward.
	What kind of message does this send to our brave service people—“Go abroad for your active service, risk your life for others, sacrifice so much for your country and for the grateful people of another and be awarded a medal but not the right to wear it”? PJM holders might be able to accept this arrangement but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has already indicated, the medal has been awarded to veterans from other Commonwealth countries who took part in the conflict, and they do have the right to wear it, unlike their British colleagues who served alongside them. Australian and New Zealand veterans are allowed to wear their medals, but British veterans are not. Given that they are all subject to the same sovereign, the Minister must be able to understand why this is perceived as unfair and anomalous.
	I have written to the Minister on this matter previously and he referred, as he has this evening, to previous consideration and decisions by the HD committee. He also explained why medal holders in other countries can wear the PJM:
	“Each Government applies its own rules and judgement to its own citizens and no country is obligated to follow another. This applies to medals as it applies to other aspects of public policy.”
	In that case, I urge him not to hide behind royal prerogative but to take his own advice and take a Government decision. It would be helpful if he could clarify whether the discussions on medals are the ultimate responsibility of the Government, as he indicated in that letter, meaning that the Government could indeed press ahead with change, or whether it is an issue of royal prerogative, in which case it simply does not make sense to have different rules for the same medal for different countries of the Commonwealth as they are all subject to the same sovereign.

Stephen Pound: When I was awarded the Order of Merit, officer class, by the President of the Republic of Poland, I received, without any solicitation, a letter from Buckingham palace signed by Her Majesty’s representative saying that I could wear the Order of Merit, officer class, of the Republic of Poland anywhere in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems a little unfair that former members of the Royal Green Jackets regiment in my constituency cannot wear the medals that they earned in conflict whereas I, without asking, have been given permission to wear the OM, officer class, of the Republic of Poland?

Mr Speaker: Order. The distinguished career history of the hon. Gentleman will be of continuing interest and indeed fascination, but I know that in responding, the hon. Lady will wish to remain in order.

Gemma Doyle: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has highlighted why so many veterans feel that the decision is unfair.
	The wearing of the PJM has been raised in the House in the past, both in Adjournment debates and in several early-day motions calling for reform of the HD committee system or requesting that the Government make representations to the committee to bring about change and ensure that veterans have the right to wear their medal. Signatories of the early-day motion included the familiar names of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the present Under-Secretary of State for Defence, and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), now the Minister for the Armed Forces, who are not on the Treasury Bench at present, but frequently are when the House debates defence issues.
	The hon. Member for North Devon also signed a motion specifically calling for an exemption and noting the differences with other Commonwealth nations. Given the Ministers’ previous support for PJM holders, I hope it is not too much to ask them, along with the other 51 Government Members who have signed early-day motions supporting PJM holders, to support the Lords amendment today. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I advise him to listen to the argument being made today.
	Concerns have been expressed about the precedent that the amendment could set, but we must remember that it seeks to address a very specific set of circumstances—that veterans be allowed to wear a Commonwealth medal that they have earned, been awarded and been permitted to accept.
	Members may be aware, however, that the Government have faced similar situations in the past. The Russian convoy 40th anniversary medal was awarded to British veterans in 1985, after negotiations between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Russia. Like the PJM, although veterans were able to receive it, they were not allowed to wear it until 1994 when, after further negotiations and lobbying, veterans were given permission to proudly display their commendations. Ministers talk about precedent, but it seems that a precedent already exists that would permit the wearing of the PJM.
	I do not suggest that we start using legislation routinely as a vehicle for decisions on medals, but in this instance it is clear that Members feel that the process is not working. My office receives frequent inquiries from people who are not constituents of mine but are entirely frustrated by the medals system and the lack of information about the review, in which the Minister places so much faith.

James Gray: rose—

Anne Main: rose—

Gemma Doyle: I am not giving way at the moment. I know that the Minister had to re-open the consultation on the medals review as the proper consultees were not initially involved.

James Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am amazed that she shows no tint of political embarrassment about the blatant political opportunism of promising now to do something that her Government refused to do for 13 years. Will she not be satisfied with the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister announced
	that there will be a review of the PJM, which is an important point? The Lords amendment is not about the PJM; it is about all Commonwealth medals. Surely she can understand that those of us who feel strongly about the PJM on behalf of constituents should be satisfied with the fact that the Government are prepared to review it—something that her party was never prepared to do.

Gemma Doyle: The hon. Gentleman is making a somewhat better case than the Minister made. As he supports the principle of the amendment, I hope he might reconsider and join us in the Lobby this evening.
	In conclusion, I welcome the strengthening of the armed forces covenant in the Bill. It offers veterans, as well as service personnel and families, the protections that they deserve. Supporting the amendment would be an indication of the approach that the Government intend to take in moving forward in the spirit of the new legislation on the armed forces covenant.

Stephen Gilbert: Before addressing Lords amendment 6, I wish to join colleagues in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, wherever they serve, and expressing gratitude for their hard work, bravery and courage.
	I agree with the Minister. The Liberal Democrats will be disagreeing with our friends in another place on this matter. We need a full and thorough review of all the issues associated with the awarding of Commonwealth medals. It is pernicious for the Opposition to pick one medal and try to make political capital out of it, rather than looking at the matter overall. However, I say to the Minister that this will be the second review that the coalition Government have had on the awarding of medals. It is important that this time we learn from the failure of the previous review to secure cross-party support and get it right for the long term. The terms of reference and the timeline for the last review were not made public and it failed to consult interested stakeholder groups, including the veterans to whom the medals are awarded. I ask him to give an assurance that those three concerns will be resolved in the new review.

Andrew Robathan: We have since consulted specifically on each issue and await the approval, or otherwise, of the medals review, but I am afraid that it has not yet been approved.

Stephen Gilbert: I thank the Minister for his intervention.

Kevan Jones: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that his party backed this campaign when in opposition. It also campaigned very strongly for the national defence medal, including some very nasty leaflets from a Liberal Democrat candidate directed against the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

Stephen Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The Liberal Democrats support the national defence medal and a thorough review that will deliver consistency for the awarding of all medals for members of our armed forces. It is absolutely right that for people joining our armed forces it is as much a calling for them as it is a job. It is right that we give them the recognition
	they deserve for their bravery in standing up for our freedoms. It is absolute hypocrisy for a former Minister sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, who was chuntering under his breath and saying that the reason they changed their view—

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that no allegation of hypocrisy against an individual hon. or right hon. Member should be made. I feel sure that he is not imputing such motives, but if he is perhaps he would withdraw his remark.

Stephen Gilbert: If that is what the record shows, Mr. Speaker, I of course withdraw the remark.
	There is a level of disingenuity, shall we say, in a party that had 13 years to act on this issue but failed to do so now seeking to make political capital from it. It is important that we get this right for all the men and women who serve in our armed forces and that we do so in a considered way. That is why we disagree with the Lords tonight.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Minister is seeking to respond to the debate. No? He is not obliged to, as the Government have set out their position.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 263, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 6 disagreed to.
	Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 6;
	That Mr Andrew Robathan, Mr Mark Francois, Gemma Doyle, Mr David Hamilton and Stephen Gilbert be Members of the Committee;
	That Mr Andrew Robathan be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(James Duddridg e .)
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The media are reporting that the House business for next week has been changed, and that the Backbench Business Committee debate on a European Union referendum Bill is now to be not on Thursday but on Monday. First there is the issue of the media being told first, rather than the House, but secondly, that is Back-Bench business time. Although the Government can allocate that time, they cannot dictate to the Backbench Business Committee what business is done on what particular day. This seems to be a breach of the orders of the House, and I wonder whether you have had any indication that a statement will be made to explain the situation.

Philip Hollobone: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you been informed by Her Majesty’s Government that, if the business for Monday is to be changed, the designation of the European Union business will change from Back-Bench business to business of Her Majesty’s Government?
	You will well remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that last week Her Majesty’s Government went to great lengths to protect the Hillsborough debate, which was scheduled as a result of an e-petition. The debate on an EU referendum is also in response to a public petition, but the Government’s response seems to be add odds with their previous behaviour.

Lindsay Hoyle: I find that there is always speculation about Government business, but as the House knows, there is to be a business statement as usual tomorrow, at which the Government will set out the business for next week. That is solely a matter for the Government and not one for the Chair.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Freedom of Information

That the draft Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authorities) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Grand Committee

Ordered ,
	That the Order of the House of 6 September 2011 relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee be amended, in paragraph (1), by leaving out the words “re-balancing the economy in Northern Ireland” and inserting the words “applying the principles of the Big Society Agenda to Northern Ireland”. —(James Duddridge.)

PETITIONS

Prisoners’ Rights in Israel

Mark Williams: It gives me pleasure to present a petition on the issue of the illegal detention without charge of many in the Palestinian community, notwithstanding the Egyptian-brokered deal that has seen the welcome release of the Israelis soldier Gilad Shalit and good progress on the release of Palestinian detainees. The petition is from Elizabeth Morley and the Free Palestine group in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Ceredigion,
	Declares that the Petitioners are appalled by Israel’s continued illegal detention without charge of thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of children, women and sick people, held in inhumane conditions, in violation of their basic human rights.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take every possible measure to ensure that Israel complies with all its international legal obligations in this regard, particularly the Fourth Geneva convention.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000966]

Train Fares in West Kent and East Sussex

John Stanley: I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in his place. I know that were it not for the constraints on him as a Minister, he would be joining in the presentation of this petition with his customary enthusiasm and determination.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of West Kent and East Sussex,
	Declares that the Petitioners note the campaign by the Kent and Sussex Courier on Southeastern rail fares and that the Petitioners believe that local rail travellers have been unfairly targeted by double figure fare increases, above the average across the network.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review its policy on the setting of rail fares.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000967]
	For the thousands of rail travellers in west Kent and on the three lines to London through my constituency—the Borough Green and West Malling line, the Tonbridge line and the Edenbridge line—the extortionate increase in rail fares that they face is a matter of huge importance. I am glad of the opportunity to present this petition.

Train Fares in West Kent and East Sussex

Michael Fallon: I, too, present a petition that is also strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on behalf of the residents of west Kent and East Sussex, who are calling one last time for Southeastern rail not to increase rail fares so far above the rate of inflation. The petition is supported by more than 2,000 people and I hope that even now Southeastern will think again.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of West Kent and East Sussex,
	Declares that the Petitioners note the campaign by the Kent and Sussex Courier on Southeastern rail fares and that the Petitioners believe that local rail travellers have been unfairly targeted by double figure fare increases, above the average across the network.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review its policy on the setting of rail fares.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000968]

Car Insurance (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

Margaret Ritchie: I am pleased to have secured this debate on an issue that severely impacts on my constituents and others across Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here to respond to the debate.
	There are considerable problems in the motor insurance market at present, especially in Northern Ireland, where drivers are subject to excessively high insurance costs that are rising rapidly year on year. The problems are not unique to Northern Ireland, but they are particularly striking in our case. We have also found in our research that consumers in Northern Ireland have less choice of insurance providers, with three times fewer companies offering car insurance.
	I also welcome the introduction of the Motor Insurance Regulation Bill, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). My right hon. Friend, quite rightly, shone a light on troublesome referral practices and the Bill promises to make much-needed changes to the regulation of the insurance market in England and Wales. Although referrals operate in a different manner in Northern Ireland, the purpose of my speech this evening is to cast light and call for action on many of the issues that plague the operation of the car insurance industry in Northern Ireland. These issues are not entirely commensurate with those raised by my right hon. Friend in relation to England, but must be dealt with in the same direct and purposeful manner. I call on the Minister, where possible, to ensure that that is the case and to use his good influence to press the Northern Ireland Executive to act on the issue.
	In August the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland launched a campaign to highlight the cost of car insurance, which I fully support. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the Office of Fair Trading subsequently agreed to undertake an investigation into the car insurance market with a specific focus on Northern Ireland. We must robustly establish why premiums have increased by a reported 40% in the 12 months to March 2011, and why insurance costs are significantly higher in Northern Ireland than in other regions. Indeed, we need not only to assess that, but to redress it. The findings must be robust and the resulting measures must have teeth.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing this debate on an issue that is very important to us all in Northern Ireland. The concern about the insurance premiums is clear, and one reason for those insurance premiums, and the difference in price between Northern Ireland and the UK mainland, is the Compensation Act 2006. Is the hon. Lady aware that in the past year the number of claims notified to the compensation recovery unit in Northern Ireland fell by 23%, whereas in England and Wales it rose by 17%? Is she also aware that last year some 30,000 claims for compensation were made, but that in the past year only 768 were made and their value in the county court is less than £5,000—far below the equivalent figure in England and Wales? Does she feel that, for those reasons alone,
	insurance premiums in Northern Ireland should be reduced? It is quite obvious that the drivers and vehicle users in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged financially.

Nigel Evans: Order. That intervention was a tad long, Mr Shannon.

Margaret Ritchie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his rather long intervention. I none the less agree with him, and I will come to that point later in my speech.
	The extent of the problem is stark. The Consumer Council report, “The Cost of Insurance in Northern Ireland”, published in March 2009, indicated that consumers in Northern Ireland were paying 84% more on average than those in the rest of the UK. Furthermore, five Northern Irish cities ranked among the top 10 most expensive areas in the UK. Relatively expensive car insurance premiums prevail throughout Northern Ireland.

Naomi Long: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I appreciate the fact that she has brought this matter to the Floor of the House. Does she agree that the OFT investigation is crucial, because although the Consumer Council report is useful in highlighting particular issues, it is flawed in a number of respects? For example, it compared median rather than best available prices in the UK. It also compared only products available on comparison websites, which is restrictive when we consider the wider available market.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Like her, I believe that the OFT report is vital in making critical recommendations that I hope will result in the lowering of insurance premiums. I hope that the report has the teeth to deal with this difficult and vexatious issue.
	According to evidence, car insurance premiums in Northern Ireland have increased by almost 73% in the past two years. The situation is even worse for younger drivers, whose premiums, according to research, have increased by 112%. Young people face severe difficulties in entering the job market, and the prohibitively high cost of motor insurance is yet another barrier to their finding work.
	The average yearly car insurance premium in Northern Ireland is now £923.90, compared with the national average of £525. I am concerned that that, with the increasing cost of fuel, will force some people off the road altogether, or that it will lead to an increase in motorists driving illegally without insurance. I am sure the Minister agrees that we must ensure that that does not happen.
	Those problems are compounded by the restricted range of companies offering premiums in Northern Ireland, which limits competition and drives up prices. I urge the Minister to address, and where possible to remove, any barriers to companies that wish to enter the market in Northern Ireland.
	Two fundamental arguments are put forward to justify the high costs of motor insurance in Northern Ireland. The first argument is that Northern Ireland is a case apart, because its demographics and road layouts bring
	an increased risk of incidents on our roads, and the second is that the Northern Ireland legal system places a higher burden on insurers.
	To begin with, the evidence that Northern Ireland has a very young population is greatly exaggerated. Indeed, we have a proportion of young people similar to that found in English regions such as London. Likewise, a lack of motorway coverage has been cited as a reason for increased premiums, because statistically those are the safest road type. However, maps show that Northern Ireland has a relatively consistent motorway density compared with regions in the UK and Europe. Moreover, some of the fundamental actuarial evidence regarding the number of accidents, claims and casualties on our highways weighs against any of the debatable factors regarding demographics or road layout.
	Those facts must be kept at the forefront of our mind when considering the claimed justification for the increased cost of premiums. They are rising at a time when Northern Ireland is experiencing a decline in the number of road traffic accidents: 2010—the most recent year on record—saw the lowest number of road deaths since records began in 1931. Naturally, every death on our roads is a tragedy, but we must commend the work done to improve safety.
	There are some basic facts that are hard to reconcile with rising insurance costs. The number of road traffic accidents reported to the police service has dropped over the past decade from nearly 40,000 per year in 2000 to about 30,000 per year in 2009. The number of compensation claims is decreasing, whereas in England and Wales the numbers are rising. More specifically, according to a National Audit Office report published at the beginning of the year, the number of claims reported to the compensation recovery unit fell by 23% in the decade up to 2009. In short, the trend is clear: although accidents and claims are decreasing, the cost of insurance is increasing. I ask the Minister to give detailed consideration to that fundamental point.

Naomi Long: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. Does she accept that one of the factors cited was the higher compensation paid out in Northern Ireland, which was attributed largely to the fact that juries have been involved in such decisions for much longer than in England and Wales? Critically, however, compensation levels did not increase but insurance premiums did, so it cannot be argued that that was what led to increased premiums.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Lady for her useful intervention.
	All those facts weigh heavily against any argument that the specific demographic or topographical factors in Northern Ireland justify the increasing costs of insurance, and are extremely difficult to relate to the draconian rise in the cost of insurance premiums.
	It has also been suggested, by the Association of British Insurers and others, that the legal system in Northern Ireland imposes increased costs on insurers. However, when compared with what happens in England and Wales, many of the factors in Northern Ireland would be expected to act in the opposite direction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn rightly highlighted the impact of referral fees on insurance premiums in England. It must be noted that a statutory
	prohibition is in force against solicitors paying referral fees in Northern Ireland. Given that the payment of referral fees to claims management companies has frequently been cited as a significant contributory factor to increasing premiums in England, its absence would be expected to drive down the costs of insurance in Northern Ireland. However, that does not appear to be the case.
	I am certainly not claiming that the system in operation is perfect. Indeed, although referral fees are prohibited for solicitors, other agents, such as brokers, credit hire companies and repair garages, may receive them. Although credit hire companies offer a useful service for non-blame drivers, they also raise the cost for insurers, and we must have firm regulations to remove the potential for the exploitation of accidents or those involved in collisions. The claims advice service is an important step in doing that, and should be commended. Another factor cited as a reason for increasing insurance prices in England is the practice of “no win, no fee”. Such a regime does not operate in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fact that any claimant would have to invest their own money, or else find a solicitor willing to fund the costs, is a powerful disincentive against speculative claimants.

Jim Shannon: I shall be very quick with this intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Lady think that specific consideration needs to be given to social need and the fact that Northern Ireland is clearly, as we all know, a rural community? There are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. Does she think that those should be considered as well?

Margaret Ritchie: I take on board what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—my neighbouring constituency—has said. Like him, I represent a rural constituency and am well aware of issues such as a lack of jobs, inaccessibility, and the economic burden on people. All those can place increasing burdens on people at a time when insurance premiums are increasing.
	All that, taken together with the absence of referral fees for solicitors, suggests that Northern Ireland offers a legal system that should act to keep costs down and be at least as effective as the system in England and Wales, if not more so. I would like the Minister to note my concern that that is certainly not reflected in the cost of insurance. I accept that the cost of claims for minor injuries in Northern Ireland can be higher than in England and Wales, partially as a result of there being no recourse to the small claims court for such cases, but opening up the small claims court to such cases is not necessarily the remedy, as that will bring its own risks and problems. However, more needs to be done to ensure that spurious and over-inflated claims do not clog up the system and raise costs for honest motorists. We must increase the burden of medical evidence that is required before establishing cases of whiplash or other, similar injuries, not to penalise the vulnerable—those with genuine, medically verifiable injuries would in no way be affected—but to ensure that the police and medical authorities work together so that claims are paid only in cases involving genuine accidents and genuine injuries.
	I have dealt at length with the figures and the legal issues, but behind the wealth of statistics are the everyday problems that the high cost of insurance represents.
	Those living on low incomes or in rural areas can simply no longer afford to keep a car on the road. Many young motorists and their parents in my constituency have told me of their struggles to secure affordable insurance. They are understandably concerned about the discrepancy in insurance prices between Northern Ireland and other regions in Britain. Through having to pay excessive insurance fees, households in Northern Ireland are being discriminated against. That unfair practice has been in place for too long, adversely affecting those, young and old, who depend on their cars for work, particularly in areas where public transport provision is limited.
	The broader context is that the economy is suffering, with record numbers of young people out of work, and that is only exacerbated by restricting people’s use of motor vehicles. We need a dynamic, mobile work force, but making the cost of car insurance so expensive puts up a barrier to our economic success, especially for the young, among whom the unemployment rate is estimated at 18%—almost one in five cannot find a job—compared with an overall unemployment rate in Northern Ireland of 7.6%. Excessive insurance premiums adversely affect young people, preventing them from offering the skill of driving to potential employers. In these extremely challenging economic times, I would ask the Minister to consider any measures that would make insurance more affordable for young people, particularly when driving relates to their employment.
	Insurance costs have a real impact on people, young and old, who need to be mobile for social and economic reasons. I hope that I have made clear the scale of the problem faced by our motorists. The insurance industry must stabilise its premiums so that hard-pressed motorists get a fair deal when they purchase their vehicle insurance. I seek assurances from the Minister that he recognises the problem and will act in unison with ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to address the problem in the light of any recommendations from the upcoming Office of Fair Trading report.
	Day in, day out, my Northern Ireland colleagues and I face constituents who come to us about the rising cost of car insurance. I heard it again today when I participated in a BBC Northern Ireland debate. There were numerous calls from young people, as well as middle-aged to elderly people, all complaining about the lack of competition and the lack of insurance companies offering different insurance rates. However, the most abiding comments that I heard were about how people wanted insurance costs driven down so that they could drive their cars and access the employment market. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate. The increased cost of motor insurance has been one of the recurring themes in my postbag since I became a Minister, and those communications have gathered momentum in recent months. The matter affects all parts of the country. It also affects all age groups, but particularly young drivers. At a time when people feel that their cost of living is under pressure, it is important to ensure that
	the motor insurance market works in such a way as to help consumers and that it tries, whenever possible, to keep the cost of insurance as low as possible.
	According to calculations from the Association of British Insurers, motor insurance premiums in 2010 amounted to £10.7 billion, and claims amounted to £10.3 billion. When the other costs of the motor insurance business were taken into account, however, that translated to an underwriting loss of £1.8 billion. The cost of motor insurance to the insurance companies themselves, therefore, is quite significant, and it is loss making. There are clearly some real challenges involved, and we need to think carefully about how we can bring down the costs for insurers, so that that can feed through to the costs for drivers. That is what we are trying to focus on.
	The Government firmly believe that businesses and consumers get the best outcomes from financial services if markets are competitive and properly regulated. At the same time, disproportionate or overbearing regulation imposes costs on firms that are passed on to users, either through higher charges and lower returns or through a reduction in choice and competition. Our challenge is to strike the right balance.
	It is clear that, on average, motorists faced significant increases in their premiums in the year ending 31 March 2011. That is adding substantially to the costs of motoring in the UK. The hon. Lady was right to say that we need to establish the full facts and the reasons behind any increase, and to ascertain whether there are any consumer or competition issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the functioning of the market.
	The Office of Fair Trading therefore issued a call for evidence in September. The OFT is asking insurers and others for their views on a number of aspects of the private motor insurance market that might raise competition or consumer issues. This is an important piece of work; it will improve the OFT’s understanding of the market and put it in a better position to determine whether there are aspects of the market that are not functioning well and how best to address the issues.
	The OFT has been actively engaging with participants in the insurance market, trade bodies, the Government, regulatory agencies and consumer groups by issuing information requests. The research that the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland has done will be helpful in informing that process, and it is to its credit that it has carried out that work. I would encourage people to think about any evidence that they can provide. The deadline for written responses to the OFT’s call for evidence closed last week, but it is still open to contributions, and I am sure that it would welcome ongoing input and views. It plans to publish its findings in December this year, and will consider next steps in the light of evidence that it receives.
	The hon. Lady focused on the cost of motor insurance in Northern Ireland, and talked about some of the factors that affect it. A research paper on the same issue has been prepared for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It strikes a slightly different note from that of the hon. Lady. It states that
	“the relatively high rate of accidents and related casualties in Northern Ireland, combined with higher compensation levels and legal fees suggests that insurers do, in fact, face considerably higher costs when transacting car insurance in Northern Ireland.”
	The paper goes on to say that
	“the higher car insurance premium rates paid by Northern Ireland drivers might be reflective of higher risks and costs associated with transacting car insurance business here, rather than a discriminatory pricing regime.”
	It is interesting to note that, having looked at the cost of motor insurance, the research paper goes on to look at the cost of house insurance, and to compare Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. There is clearly a debate to be had about the costs, and the evidence provided by the Consumer Council contrasts with that in the research paper produced by the Assembly. That is why I think it is important for the OFT to look at those particular areas and to understand the reasons why premiums in Northern Ireland might be higher than those in the rest of the UK.
	Underpinning the pricing of insurers is the use of risk-based premiums. Insurers take a number of different factors into account when deciding the level of premiums and those factors correlate with the risk being covered. For example, some insurers group postal code areas in order to ensure that all those in a similar risk area are covered in a similar way, but the level of data used in underwriting is a commercial decision for firms, which the Government do not seek to control.
	While a postcode does not itself determine whether or not a person will make a claim, it can be an accurate indicator of the likelihood. It is often used in cases where there are hotspots for crash fraud. The three worst hotspots are not in Northern Ireland, but where fraud is used to trigger claims, driving up costs for insurers, those costs are, sadly, borne by all those who drive.
	There are other issues. For example, the Government were very disappointed with the recent European Court of Justice ruling that the use of gender as a risk factor by insurers should not result in individual differences in premiums and benefits for men and women. We expect this to have a negative impact on consumers and lead to price rises for motor insurance for young women drivers who are seen to be a safer risk than young male drivers.
	What we need to do is to tackle some of the underlying causes of costs for insurers. The hon. Lady was eloquent in identifying some of the reductions in road traffic accidents. She is right to point out that it is incongruous to see road traffic accidents falling in number when motor insurance claims are rising. There is an issue there, and we need to get to the bottom of it.
	We are committed to the implementation of the Jackson proposals, including the reform of conditional fee arrangements and a ban on referral fees, which we believe will reduce the risk of frivolous claims. Clearly, as justice is a devolved matter, different arrangements are in place as between the mainland and Northern Ireland in respect of justice matters. The hon. Lady is right that we need to work with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to look at where there are differences in the legal regime that could be dealt with to help reduce the cost of claims.
	We are looking at introducing a statutory ban on referral fees for England and Wales. Since 2004, when the Law Society lifted the ban for solicitors in England and Wales paying referral fees, people have been encouraged to make claims. That has led to personal injury claims rising at a time when the number of collisions and
	casualties on the road is falling, yet the number and overall cost of bodily injury claims has steadily increased. The hon. Lady spoke about whiplash claims earlier. It is estimated that they cost insurers about £2 billion each year—a cost borne, of course, by those who pay their motor insurance premiums.
	As I have said, we are trying to tackle the issue of the payment of fees in England and Wales, but the prohibition remains in place in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady mentioned that other people might also pay referral fees. The Assembly and the Executive need to think carefully about how to strengthen the current ban on referral fees in legislation. The hon. Lady should take that up with her colleagues.
	Other issues drive up the costs of insurance. The hon. Lady talked about the number of young people who want to drive to work or to college to study. What is happening is that they are in part being priced out of the market, but uninsured driving adds about £30 to
	each insurance premium. We want to ensure that young people take out the insurance cover that they need to enable them to get to college, while tackling the number of young people who are not taking out insurance cover as a means of driving down the cost of insurance.
	In conclusion, the hon. Lady has raised an important point. It is a complex issue, as her speech set out. We want to work with the OFT and with the Assembly and Executive to find ways to reduce the cost of motor insurance in Northern Ireland as well as throughout the UK. The OFT report is an important part of that. We want to work with stakeholders so that we get the right outcome to drive those costs down so that people can use their cars for leisure, education and work without paying through the nose for that privilege.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Adjournment of the house (november 2011, christmas and february 2012)

That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 15 November 2011, do adjourn till Monday 21 November 2011; at its rising on Tuesday 20 December 2011, do adjourn till Tuesday 10 January 2012; and at its rising on Thursday 9 February 2012, do adjourn till Monday 20 February 2012.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 306, Noes 95.

Question accordingly agreed to.